English Language
English Language
English Language
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Paper 9093/11
Reading
Key messages
• In preparation for this exam, candidates need to ensure that they read a wide range of material from a
diverse range of sources such as advertisements, brochures, leaflets, editorials, news stories, articles,
reviews, blogs, investigative journalism, letters, podcasts, (auto)biographies, travel writing, diaries,
essays, scripted speech, narrative writing, and descriptive writing.
• Candidates need to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the linguistic elements and features
of texts such as parts of speech/word classes, vocabulary, figurative language, phonology, morphology,
rhetorical devices, voice, aspect, tense, modality, narrative perspective, word ordering and sentence
structure, paragraph and text-level structure, formality/informality of tone, pragmatics.
• Candidates should develop an intimate knowledge and understanding of the conventions and
discourses associated with a diverse range of genres, styles and contexts, enabling them to respond
reflectively, analytically, discursively and creatively, as is appropriate to the task or context.
• For Question 1(a) the accompanying instructions and text provide the context and background
information to guide the candidates as they produce their directed response. Candidates should use
these to make carefully considered choices of appropriate lexis, register and tone to suit the task set
and ensure they achieve the highest possible standards of accuracy and expression in their writing.
• For Question 1(b) candidates need to ensure they compare the form, structure and language of the
original text and their own, with a clear emphasis on selecting elements from both texts that may be
analysed to demonstrate how writers’ stylistic choices relate to audience and shape meaning.
• For Question 2 candidates need to comment on the form, structure and language of a text. They are
required to identify characteristic features of the text, relate them to the meaning, context and audience
of the writing, organise information in their answers and write using clear and appropriate language.
• A secure degree of technical accuracy – especially in the use of spelling, punctuation and tenses – is
required at this level.
General comments
The rubric was generally understood, with only a few candidates omitting either a part of a question or a full
question. However, there were some brief responses to Question 1(a). Candidates are required to write
between 150 and 200 words. While there is no direct penalty for failing to adhere to this requirement, this is
an aspect of the response’s ‘relevance to purpose’. As such, adherence to the word limit is assessed as part
of the second bullet point of AO2. Candidates should remember that they are being marked for task focus
and relevant content as well as expression and accuracy. Largely speaking, though, the paper was handled
with understanding and competence. There was a little evidence of a few candidates lacking the necessary
language skills for text analysis.
Question 1(a) is a directed response task. Candidates need to follow the instructions carefully to produce a
written response informed by the language, style and structure to fit a specific form, purpose and audience –
in this session the original text was a news report. Their reworking (or recasting) of the original text should
incorporate recognisable conventions of the text type identified in the instructions; in this session it was a
letter (150 – 200 words) to the French President. Careful consideration of the target audience is required.
Candidates are expected to write clearly and accurately, with relevant content, and effectively for the
prescribed purpose and audience.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
A good working knowledge of linguistics is indispensable in responding to Question 1(b), where candidates
are required to compare the text produced for 1(a) with the given text, analysing form, structure and
language. Here, candidates are assessed for their ability to demonstrate comparative understanding of texts
with clear reference to characteristic features, and comparative analysis of form, structure and language and
how a writer’s stylistic choices relate to audience to shape meaning. It is very important that candidates
employ some form of comparative approach in their response to Question 1(b). A topical approach
guarantees continuous comparison in which a conclusion can be used to emphasise the essential similarities
and differences between the two texts. Those who adopted a topical approach tended to be the candidates
who demonstrated the most comprehensive linguistic elements.
In Question 2, a sound knowledge of linguistics is again required as candidates are assessed on their ability
to demonstrate understanding of a text in terms of meaning, context and audience with reference to
characteristic features and their ability to analyse form, structure and language. In the case of most
candidates, there was a clear understanding of the need to make precise connections between language
features and their contribution to the full effect of the given text. Less successful responses could often have
been improved through more precise use of language to link evidence with explanatory comments; phrases
such as ‘the writer is trying to persuade the readers’ and ‘this helps the readers to imagine’ cannot be
considered useful text analysis.
Question 1
(a) The characteristic features and conventions of a letter were clearly recognised by most candidates:
they gave a salutation and a valediction, most wrote in a register appropriate to the audience and
content showed unity, coherence and adequate development.
Responses usually showed some utilisation of paragraph structure to: briefly introduce the purpose
for writing; include the main aspects of the issue in respect of the comparison of level of responses
to the two fires; explication of the Amazon’s environmental and ecological importance to the world;
a request for the President to raise awareness of situation in the Amazon in France and sometimes
in consultation with world leaders (including the mention of ‘G7’ and ‘G20’); as far as possible, low
frequency lexis was used throughout given the stature of the recipient, the President of France.
Most candidates’ responses were clear in expressing a sense of outrage that the Amazon
rainforest had received less coverage and less investment than Notre-Dame. They drew upon facts
and statistics from the bulleted list in the given text in order to make their case.
The most effective responses employed direct address, emotive language and rhetorical questions
to hone in on the specificity of billions being raised for a cultural monument. One insightful
response stated, ‘I respect and appreciate the culture and history of Notre Dame as much as
anyone else, but will our history matter if we do not have a future? This letter is a call to action. I
am imploring you to use your large platform ...’. Stronger responses subtly suggested – usually by
implication – that the fire in the Amazon was of significantly greater global significance than that
which destroyed Notre-Dame; these showed careful selection of a few facts at most to indicate the
scope and seriousness of Amazonian fires such as, ‘20 per cent of the world’s oxygen is produced
…’.
Candidates were often less clear on the need to write in an appropriate register when addressing
the French President. One candidate began formally, courteously and discursively by appreciating
the heavy demands of the presidential office, but immediately outlined a more pressing call to
action in saving the planet, noting that their letter contained news about ‘an issue that calls for your
action not just as President of France, but as a world leader’.
Weaker responses offered straightforward summary of a number of facts about the importance of
the Amazon’s key role for maintenance of the global environment and ecological diversity under
threat from the fires. These responses showed little discernible ‘shaping’ for purpose and audience;
some candidates attempted to shame the President for not being concerned (enough)/not taking
action (enough)/not leading a global response with reference to the Amazon fire. Furthermore,
such responses suggested that the receipt of world-wide financial donations for repair of Notre-
Dame should be at least reciprocated with French funding and provision of materials and personnel
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
to combat the Amazonian fires; the logistical obstacles of this suggestion were not recognised.
Where misunderstanding occurred, candidates usually thought that ‘several cities’ were ablaze
rather than being ‘blanketed’ in ‘thick smoke’.
These weaker responses often showed errors with use of grammar and incorrect tenses –
frequently as a result of being over ambitious with language choices. Several of these weaker
responses quoted large amounts from the given text in their directed writing, which was rarely
justified.
Getting the balance between showing understanding of the text and crafting an effective response
is the key to this question and the tendency was perhaps to be a little too safe. It is important for
candidates to be aware that understanding is not necessarily demonstrated by rearranging chunks
of the text. Often the most effective writing came at the end of responses when candidates freed
themselves from checklisting the text.
Most of the candidates abided by the guidelines concerning the length of their responses (150 –
200 words). Several candidates wrote considerably shorter pieces that did not best suit the form
and purpose specified.
(b) To do well in this task, candidates need to analyse form, structure and language and to directly
compare different approaches and features in the two texts available to them, i.e. the text given
and the one that they have just created. An integrated approach is more effective for this type of
comparative task than dealing with each text separately. Where textual evidence is selected,
candidates should remember to offer clear analysis of how the writer’s choices of form, structure
and language are related to audience and shape meaning.
It is advised that candidates focus on the difference in formality, tone and registers, and collaborate
language with form and structure to give a more robust response in terms of their analysis.
Candidates, generally, understood the conventions of a newspaper report – i.e. the inclusion of a
headline, an impactful opening sentence, content in terms of who, what, where, when, why and
how, and the inclusion of some quotation or references.
The most effective responses attempted to compare the ways in which conventions were adhered
to in the texts. Candidates considered the title or headline of the news report and compared it to
the salutation of the letter format e.g. the title of office. They compared how each audience –
general versus specific; public versus private – was specified by the form adopted and how the
context of each dictated both the register and the tone – formal and serious. Candidates compared
the use of third person in the news report with the use of first and second person in the letter. They
compared how both forms contained opinions with the use of quotations in the news report and
personal viewpoint in the letter.
Points about structure were, generally, very limited; largely, comprising basic comparisons of
paragraph numbers and lengths with passing reference made to the ‘Fast Facts’ section of the
news report. One candidate attempted to explore the structural features of the news report by
referring to the general convention of ‘front loading’ the most important information.
Successful responses often focused on a comparison of emotive and dramatic language. They
referred to the writer’s use of, ‘catastrophe’, ‘tragedy’ ‘horrific’ and ‘devouring’ in the news report
and why they had employed similar words to evoke the seriousness of the situation when
addressing the French President. The informative purposes of each text and the inclusion of facts
and statistics were selected for analysis. Most compared the use of rhetorical questions to engage
an audience.
Stronger responses showed a clear distinction between a letter and its conventions and the
conventions of the news report; these responses regarded the report and their own letter as of
equal status and commented on both extensively. Such responses also offered a considerable
amount of detail to illustrate points, showing a strong grasp of each feature and detail selected, and
how each related to audience and shaped meaning.
Limited responses were often brief, focused more on the news report – and occasionally entirely –
than on their own directed response, and tended to summarise content rather than to analyse
comparatively, with few or no supporting examples from the texts. They were often very general,
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
showing little awareness of how writers’ stylistic choices relate to audience and shape meaning.
Some candidates mainly listed the conventions of a news report; some referred to their own writing
as a letter even though it clearly was not. Some merely pointed out the variety of sentence types or
length of paragraphs without any reference to effect. Some responses could have explored in more
detail the formality of each text type.
These weaker responses focused on a comparison of content and neglected language analysis.
Clear reference was made to characteristic features by candidates who compared the register,
tone and language features of each piece and how these had been utilised for each specific
audience.
Candidates would be well advised to note that ‘comparative’ is the most discriminating skill in terms
of Reading and especially analysis – analysis that not only explains how a technique works
generally, i.e. the news report’s use of emotive language (e.g. ‘horrific fire’), but also how specific
effects are created that relate to audience and shape meaning (e.g. the idiomatic use of
‘Billionaires emptied their pockets ...’).
Question 2
The text was generally well understood and the question was answered with obvious engagement by most
candidates. There was a wide range of responses with, a significant number showing sophisticated
understanding and analysis. There were very few short answers.
Responses to form were generally limited. Most recognised that this was an ‘open’ letter from the rubric; a
few commented on the anonymity of the letter from the salutation ‘Dear Stranger’ and Branson’s opening
sentence, ‘You don’t know me ...’. Several noted, however, that the letter had also been personalised with
Branson’s use of direct address. One candidate noted that the letter did not follow the ‘normal’ conventions
of a letter with its informal valediction, ‘Happy regards’, but that this served to affirm the theme of the letter on
‘happiness’ and close on an optimistic note. The ‘chatty’ tone of the letter was noted and its purpose in being
advisory.
Responses to structure mainly focused on basic points about the arrangement and number of paragraphs.
Many candidates also focused on sentence types, but generally this amounted to feature spotting rather than
effective, critical engagement. Clear responses made reference to the impact of short sentences, coupled
with Branson’s use of the imperative mood. Overall, there was limited engagement on how the letter
develops.
Many candidates responded to the theme and language of this text on a personal level rather than critically
engaging with it. Clear understanding was demonstrated by candidates’ engagement with Branson’s use of
emotive language in ‘stressed, scared and sad’ and the way in which his use of sibilance provided a
‘comforting’ voice. Candidates referred to Branson’s reflective, confidential, honest and/or humble tone in
divulging personal information, ‘I’ve cheated death … seen loved ones pass away, failed in business …’.
They commented on how Branson tried to create a level of trust with the audience and how he provided
personal assurance: ‘I promise you’. Repetition and the imperative voice were discussed and how these
helped to support the encouraging and light tone: ‘Be healthy.’ Some candidates referred to Branson’s
element of humour in ‘human beings and not human doings’ and his use of sensory imagery in endorsing
this message.
Stronger responses were often characterised by the greater clarity in the critical terminology employed in
analysing form, structure and language. These stronger responses often focused on the versatility of the
salutation ‘Dear Stranger’ that nevertheless could be taken as impersonal in respect of the open letter format;
these responses appreciated the writer’s habitual use of tricolon to amplify his feelings; they commented on
aspects of Branson’s life’s achievements; they understood adverbial-fronted sentences, e.g. ‘In order to be
happy ...’ to ensure the reader appreciated the writer’s perspective; they referred to the use of anaphora, e.g.
‘Stop and breathe. Be healthy. Be around ...’ to emphasise particular points of view; the more insightful
reasoned that some readers might respond with envy to Branson’s lifestyle, especially where he describes
aspects of the tropical paradise of his Necker Island ‘at dusk’.
Conversely, weaker responses often described style, mood and vocabulary as having ‘positive connotations’
or ‘negative connotations’, with little further elaboration or definition. Similarly, a range of precisely
constructed language effects were sometimes summed up as ‘creating an interesting image’ or ‘stopping the
reader from being bored’. It is important that candidates use precise terminology to access the higher levels
of the mark scheme.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Furthermore, lower and higher frequency lexis was often confused with higher and lower ‘orders’ of lexis and
occasionally even ‘register’, where specific words were categorised as formal and informal and often referred
to as tone. The wider the critical vocabulary of the candidates (and the accuracy of use), the more able they
will be to describe the precise effects of how meaning is created. For example, there were instances of
tricolon being used in reference to four phrases, ‘We’ve built a business empire, joined conversations ...
attended many memorial parties ... met many unforgettable people.
These weaker responses adopted a paragraph-by-paragraph approach, using the phrase ‘in the …
paragraph’, or an approach to analysis which ranged haphazardly across the text. It would be helpful for
candidates to be aware that the discriminator ‘analysis is coherent and effectively structured’ and similar
descriptors are features of the higher levels; a whole-text approach can often provide sophisticated and
coherent analysis. Another consequence of the line-by-line approach was the repetition of the same point,
such as the author’s use of alliteration. It is worth remembering that the same point cannot be rewarded
twice.
Basic responses offered very generalised comments. These responses identified some language features
but offered limited analysis. These weaker responses tended to summarise the contents of the text and they
generally did this at great length.
Selection of evidence by way of quotation was not always expertly used in weaker responses, with some
candidates quoting at too great a length, or merely referring to a range of lines. Quotation from the text
should always be precise, as concise as possible and linked to explanatory comments.
Candidates would also be well advised to avoid dependence on too formulaic an approach to the analysis of
Reading texts. The categorisation of elements of a text as representative of ‘ethos’ or ‘logos’ or ‘pathos’, for
example, needs to be precisely developed by reference to exact effects of language.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Paper 9093/12
Reading
Key messages
• In preparation for this exam, candidates need to ensure that they read a wide range of material from a
diverse range of sources such as advertisements, brochures, leaflets, editorials, news stories, articles,
reviews, blogs, investigative journalism, letters, podcasts, (auto)biographies, travel writing, diaries,
essays, scripted speech, narrative writing, and descriptive writing.
• Candidates need to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the linguistic elements and features
of texts such as parts of speech/word classes, vocabulary, figurative language, phonology, morphology,
rhetorical devices, voice, aspect, tense, modality, narrative perspective, word ordering and sentence
structure, paragraph and text-level structure, formality/informality of tone, pragmatics.
• Candidates should develop an intimate knowledge and understanding of the conventions and
discourses associated with a diverse range of genres, styles and contexts, enabling them to respond
reflectively, analytically, discursively and creatively, as is appropriate to the task or context.
• For Question 1(a) the accompanying instructions and text provide the context and background
information to guide the candidates as they produce their directed response. Candidates should use
these to make carefully considered choices of appropriate lexis, register and tone to suit the task set
and ensure they achieve the highest possible standards of accuracy and expression in their writing.
• For Question 1(b) candidates need to ensure they compare the form, structure and language of the
original text and their own, with a clear emphasis on selecting elements from both texts that may be
analysed to demonstrate how writers’ stylistic choices relate to audience and shape meaning.
• For Question 2 candidates need to comment on the form, structure and language of a text. They are
required to identify characteristic features of the text, relate them to the meaning, context and audience
of the writing, organise information in their answers and write using clear and appropriate language.
• A secure degree of technical accuracy – especially in the use of spelling, punctuation and tenses – is
required at this level.
General comments
The rubric was generally understood, with only a few candidates omitting either a part of a question or a full
question. However, there were some overlong responses to Question 1(a). Candidates are required to write
between 150 and 200 words. While there is no direct penalty for failing to adhere to this requirement, this is
an aspect of the response’s ‘relevance to purpose’. As such, adherence to the word limit is assessed as part
of the second bullet point of AO2. Candidates should remember that they are being marked for task focus
and relevant content as well as expression and accuracy. Largely speaking, though, the paper was handled
with understanding and competence. There was a little evidence of a few candidates lacking the necessary
language skills for text analysis.
Question 1(a) is a directed response task. Candidates need to follow the instructions carefully to produce a
written response informed by the language, style and structure to fit a specific form, purpose and audience –
in this session the original text was a review. Their reworking (or recasting) of the original text should
incorporate recognisable conventions of the text type identified in the instructions; in this session it was an
advertisement (150 – 200 words) for a magazine for young people. Careful consideration of the target
audience is required. Candidates are expected to write clearly and accurately, with relevant content, and
effectively for the prescribed purpose and audience.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
A good working knowledge of linguistics is indispensable in responding to Question 1(b), where candidates
are required to compare the text produced for 1(a) with the given text, analysing form, structure and
language. Here, candidates are assessed for their ability to demonstrate comparative understanding of texts
with clear reference to characteristic features, and comparative analysis of form, structure and language and
how a writer’s stylistic choices relate to audience to shape meaning. It is very important that candidates
employ some form of comparative approach in their response to Question 1(b). A topical approach
guarantees continuous comparison in which a conclusion can be used to emphasise the essential similarities
and differences between the two texts. Those who adopted a topical approach tended to be the candidates
who demonstrated the most comprehensive linguistic elements.
In Question 2, a sound knowledge of linguistics is again required as candidates are assessed on their ability
to demonstrate understanding of a text in terms of meaning, context and audience with reference to
characteristic features and their ability to analyse form, structure and language. In the case of most
candidates, there was a clear understanding of the need to make precise connections between language
features and their contribution to the full effect of the given text. Less successful responses could often have
been improved through more precise use of language to link evidence with explanatory comments; phrases
such as ‘the writer is trying to persuade the readers’ and ‘this helps the readers to imagine’ cannot be
considered useful text analysis.
Question 1
(a) The characteristic features and conventions of an advertisement were clearly recognised by most
candidates: they gave the name of the product, what the product was and what it does, they used
persuasive language, some included a catchy slogan, used hyperbole and rhetorical questions,
and the more successful incorporated some form of endorsement.
Most responses employed a title with the most effective employing direct address and a range of
rhetorical features. Often, the opening section of the advertisement took the form of a series of
questions, employing hypophora; the Oaxis semi-smartwatch providing the antidote for all the
audience’s social, physical and technological needs and desires. Candidates selected appropriate
material from the given text, including the price, from the original and adopted either ‘hard sell’ or
‘soft sell’ tactics or both. Often, product endorsement was utilised in the form of a contemporary
sports personality, celebrity or the technology website itself.
Detailed responses paid attention to audience throughout, adapting language and content to suit a
target audience of young people. The clichéd phrase ‘We’ve got you covered’ featured in many
responses – this was, at times, abbreviated to ‘We’ve got you’. An interesting attempt to connect
with the target audience was the use of the word ‘drip/dripping’, such as ‘out dripping your mates’
or ‘it’s drip’, referring to being up to date or being ahead of friends. Effective use of teen slang was
employed to get alongside the reader or to position the reader as the future owner of the watch by
way of using actualisation techniques.
The most successful responses showed an appreciation that an advert is part of a wider marketing
campaign and gave Oaxis’ website link for further details including local stockists; there was
appropriate focus on the positive features of the watch – or successful redirection of features the
reviewer criticised – and how these positive features could enhance a young person’s busy lifestyle
whilst complementing their varied wardrobe requirements; the soft sell tactics used included brief
anecdotes focusing on instances where the watch would solve a problem or enhance the wearer’s
daily existence; rhetorical questions were used to highlight how potential buyer’s needs and wants
could be satisfied by the watch.
The most effective closures either called for action in one form or another or offered a guarantee
regarding customer satisfaction. These more successful responses incorporated a sense of
excitement about the semi-smartwatch often using ‘lists of three’, superlatives and alliteration, and
included a range of interesting and stimulating vocabulary. These effective responses created a
sense of urgency to purchase the Oaxis semi-smartwatch.
Weaker responses showed some misunderstandings of the text: Oaxis was not appreciated as the
company’s name, often being understood as the watch’s name; the fact that the watch functions as
a ‘digital calculator’ rather than resembling one – ‘gets a touch of’ – due to the appearance of the
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
screen; the watch has unique functions not found on a phone despite ‘it’s only replicating things
your phone can do anyway’; ‘black’ and ‘white’ was attributed to watch colours and not their faces,
and all five colours mentioned were often misunderstood as colours of watch straps; ‘software
upgrades’ was interpreted to mean the watch had come on the market with significant design flaws,
rather than a positive feature of ‘future proofing functionality’.
Some weaker responses interpreted the requirement ‘You work in the advertising department at
Oaxis’ to indicate that a first-person perspective was required and therefore offered responses like
the review, which minimised scope for contrast in 1(b). In the least successful responses,
descriptive writing predominated which goes beyond the purpose and genre of an advertisement,
or the characteristics of a report were adopted. Limited and basic responses simply duplicated the
pros and cons of the original. It was also clear that several candidates had not fully digested all the
elements of the rubric, such as writing from the point of view of an employee at Oaxis and/or
understanding the context and audience of the advertisement. The latter impacted upon their
comparative analysis.
These weaker responses often showed errors with use of grammar and incorrect tenses –
frequently as a result of being over ambitious with language choices. Several of these weaker
responses quoted large amounts from the given text in their directed writing which was rarely
justified.
Getting the balance between showing understanding of the text and crafting an effective response
is the key to this question and the tendency was perhaps to be a little too safe. It is important for
candidates to be aware that understanding is not necessarily demonstrated by rearranging chunks
of the text. Often the most effective writing came at the end of responses when candidates freed
themselves from checklisting the text.
Most of the candidates abided by the guidelines concerning the length of their responses (150 –
200 words). Several candidates wrote considerably longer pieces that did not best suit the form
and purpose specified.
(a) To do well in this task, candidates need to analyse form, structure and language and to directly
compare different approaches and features in the two texts available to them, i.e. the text given
and the one that they have just created. An integrated approach is more effective for this type of
comparative task than dealing with each text separately. Where textual evidence is selected,
candidates should remember to offer clear analysis of how the writer’s choices of form, structure
and language are related to audience and shape meaning.
It is advised that candidates focus on the difference in formality, tone and registers, and collaborate
language with form and structure to give a more robust response in terms of their analysis.
Candidates generally understood the conventions of a review – i.e. it can be subjective and give
opinion, create rapport with the audience and include product detail, often giving a formal
judgement – and an advertisement. They compared the purpose of each form: to provide a critique
of the product and to promote the product. They explored the ways in which the writer of the review
created balance through expressing both positive and negative opinions and the ways in which
their advertisement created positive bias. They also compared the ways in which each piece
employed personal pronouns. However, the colloquial use of second person in the review was not
always clearly understood.
Many points about structure were limited, largely comprising of basic comparisons of paragraph
numbers and lengths. Clear points about structure were made by candidates who considered how
each piece created a ‘hook’ in the opening section: often through a title in the advertisement, but
also through hypophora. Responses then compared how ‘listing’ was employed in each piece: the
review providing a list-like structure (often referred to as chronological) of the pros and cons, then
detailing the price of models and closing with a short summary, and ending on a final, ambivalent
note; the advertisement employing a ‘card stacking’ device, then detailing the price of models and
closing, most often, with a call to action.
Limited responses focused on a comparison of content and neglected language analysis. Clear
reference was made to characteristic features by candidates who compared the register, tone and
language features of each piece and how these had been utilised for each specific audience.
Candidates referred to the jargon and technical details of the review and the ways in which they
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
had adapted language to suit a young audience, employing colloquialism and direct address. One
candidate discussed how they had employed the AIDAS theory in creating their advert, as opposed
to the review which provided a critique. A comparison of punctuation and mood featured in more
detailed responses, with candidates considering the effects of each in creating a range of tones.
Candidates also compared positive and negative lexical fields.
Stronger responses showed a clear distinction between a review and its conventions and the
conventions of the advertisement; these responses regarded the extract and their own
advertisement as of equal status and commented on both extensively. Such responses also offered
a considerable amount of detail to illustrate points, showing a strong grasp of each feature and
detail selected, and how each related to audience and shaped meaning.
Limited responses were often brief, focused more on the review – and occasionally entirely – than
on their own directed response, and tended to summarise content rather than to analyse
comparatively, with few or no supporting examples from the texts. They were often very general,
showing little awareness of how writers’ stylistic choices relate to audience and shape meaning.
Some candidates mainly listed the conventions of a review; some referred to their own writing as
an advert even though it clearly was not. Some merely pointed out the variety of sentence types or
length of paragraphs without any reference to effect. Responses could have explored in more detail
the formality of each text type.
Question 2
The text was generally well understood and was answered with obvious engagement by most candidates.
There was a wide range of responses, with a significant number showing sophisticated understanding and
analysis. There were very few short answers.
Stronger responses were often characterised by the greater clarity in the critical terminology employed in
analysing form, structure and language. Conversely, weaker responses often described style, mood, and
vocabulary as having ‘positive connotations’ or ‘negative connotations’, with little further elaboration or
definition. Similarly, a range of precisely constructed language effects were sometimes summed up as
‘creating an interesting image’ or ‘stopping the reader from being bored’. It is important that candidates use
precise terminology to access the higher levels; for example, ‘stream of consciousness’ and ‘personification’
were often used incorrectly. Furthermore, lower and higher frequency lexis was often confused with higher
and lower ‘orders’ of lexis and occasionally even ‘register’, where specific words were categorised as formal
and informal and often referred to as tone. The wider the critical vocabulary of the candidates, the more able
they will be to describe the precise effects of how meaning is created.
Most candidates commented on the personal, friendly and/or chatty nature of the blog. They referred to its
inclusive nature with its use of first person ‘we’ and its informal register with regard to the writer’s use of
contractions. Many understood that the text was both inclusive in its reference to the graduating candidates
of 2012 and exclusive given that it was written for the ‘Yale Daily News’. The more successful commented on
the implied wider audience – that of beyond the class of 2012, consisting of the entire Yale community – but
indicated that this was most likely freshmen, sophomores and juniors and interested lecturers and
administrators, and possibly prospective candidates and their parents. Occasionally these successful
responses specifically acknowledged the article’s electronic form and how search terms like ‘Yale’ and
‘student experiences’ might yield the article as a result of an internet search. These stronger responses
explored context in addition to meaning and audience.
Candidates who provided a detailed understanding of form commented on the above, and the stronger
responses noted that alongside the expected discourse markers of a blog – ‘of course’, ‘but the thing is’ – the
form was also a valedictory speech. In that regard, it contained many of the conventional, rhetorical features
of a speech, including listing, repetition, tricolon and metaphor.
Many candidates showed a basic sense of structure, enumerating the paragraphs and commenting on their
length and the range of sentence structures. Clearer understanding of structure involved candidates
commenting on the partial repetition of the opening declaration at the end of the text. More detailed
responses considered the cyclical nature of the structure and commented on the resounding, if not
‘desperate’, call to action of the writer’s peers: ‘we’re in this together, 2012. Let’s make something happen.’
The writer’s changes in tense and tone were explored as a structural feature, with candidates noting in
particular the shift in tone provided by the hortatory conjunction, ‘but let us get one thing straight …’.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Successful candidates commented on language features that suggested a sense of unity, security and
identity. These included the reference to ‘tiny circles’ and the metaphor of the ‘web’; the listing of ‘groups ...
teams ... houses’; the tri-colonic definition of the above, ‘this elusive, indefinable, opposite’; the repetition of
‘we’re so young’; the metonymy of ‘the hats’ and ‘2012’; the references to Yale, med school, NGO and
research. The complex emotions of the writer were largely explored in terms of tone. Candidates understood
the initial sense of gratitude and fear in the opening paragraph. They commented on the sense of loss
suggested by ‘we would not have ... we would not live’ and the sense of nostalgia suggested by ‘flashbacks’
of ‘cherished’ memories: ‘that night with the guitar. That night we can not remember.’ They referred to the
writer’s sense of regret suggested by ‘our readings, that boy across the hall ...’. They also referred to the
writer’s sense of failure, ‘it is somehow too late’. Responses sometimes explored the writer’s sense of
uncertainty about the future suggested by the metaphor ‘sea of liberal arts’. The more successful usually
showed recognition that a non-professional undergraduate degree course selection means choosing a future
career path is more difficult, in opposition to ‘biology’ which would naturally lead to previously mentioned
‘med school’. Candidates also referred to the writer’s sense of humour and humility suggested by ‘the crazy
people who win the prizes’. There was recognition of the writer’s sense of determination and optimism for the
future: ‘I plan on having fun … we MUST not lose this sense of possibility.’ One candidate commented that
the piece was actually littered with ‘epistemic and deontic modality’, the latter capitalisation ironically implying
that the writer was trying to convince herself rather than her audience. Another candidate commented that
the writer’s range of emotions comprised an act of ‘mental acrobatics’.
Many limited to clear level responses demonstrated distraction in attempts to define the opposite of
loneliness, despite, ‘We do not have a word for the opposite of loneliness’. These responses adopted a
paragraph-by-paragraph approach, using the phrase ‘in the … paragraph’, or an approach to analysis which
ranged haphazardly across the text. It would be helpful for candidates to be aware that the discriminator
‘analysis is coherent and effectively structured’ and similar descriptors are a feature of the higher levels; a
whole-text approach can often provide sophisticated and coherent analysis. Another consequence of the
line-by-line approach was the repetition of the same point, such as the author’s use of alliteration. It is worth
remembering that the same point can not be rewarded twice.
Basic responses offered very generalised comments. These responses identified some language features
but offered limited analysis. These weaker responses tended to summarise the contents of the text and they
generally did this at great length.
Selection of evidence by way of quotation was not always expertly used in weaker responses, with some
candidates quoting at too great a length, or merely referring to a range of lines. Quotation from the text
should always be precise, as concise as possible and linked to explanatory comments.
Candidates would also be well advised to avoid dependence on too formulaic an approach to the analysis of
Reading texts. The categorisation of elements of a text as representative of ‘ethos’ or ‘logos’ or ‘pathos’, for
example, needs to be precisely developed by reference to exact effects of language.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Paper 9093/13
Reading
Key messages
• In preparation for this exam, candidates need to ensure that they read a wide range of material from a
diverse range of sources such as advertisements, brochures, leaflets, editorials, news stories, articles,
reviews, blogs, investigative journalism, letters, podcasts, (auto)biographies, travel writing, diaries,
essays, scripted speech, narrative writing, and descriptive writing.
• Candidates need to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the linguistic elements and features
of texts such as parts of speech/word classes, vocabulary, figurative language, phonology, morphology,
rhetorical devices, voice, aspect, tense, modality, narrative perspective, word ordering and sentence
structure, paragraph and text-level structure, formality/informality of tone, pragmatics.
• Candidates should develop an intimate knowledge and understanding of the conventions and
discourses associated with a diverse range of genres, styles and contexts, enabling them to respond
reflectively, analytically, discursively and creatively, as is appropriate to the task or context.
• For Question 1(a) the accompanying instructions and text provide the context and background
information to guide the candidates as they produce their directed response. Candidates should use
these to make carefully considered choices of appropriate lexis, register and tone to suit the task set
and ensure they achieve the highest possible standards of accuracy and expression in their writing.
• For Question 1(b) candidates need to ensure they compare the form, structure and language of the
original text and their own, with a clear emphasis on selecting elements from both texts that may be
analysed to demonstrate how writers’ stylistic choices relate to audience and shape meaning.
• For Question 2 candidates need to comment on the form, structure and language of a text. They are
required to identify characteristic features of the text, relate them to the meaning, context and audience
of the writing, organise information in their answers and write using clear and appropriate language.
• A secure degree of technical accuracy – especially in the use of spelling, punctuation and tenses – is
required at this level.
General comments
The rubric was generally understood, with only a few candidates omitting either a part of a question or a full
question. However, there were some overlong responses to Question 1(a). Candidates are required to write
between 150 and 200 words. While there is no direct penalty for failing to adhere to this requirement, this is
an aspect of the response’s ‘relevance to purpose’. As such, adherence to the word limit is assessed as part
of the second bullet point of AO2. Candidates should remember that they are being marked for task focus
and relevant content as well as expression and accuracy. Largely speaking, though, the paper was handled
with understanding and competence. There was a little evidence of a few candidates lacking the necessary
language skills for text analysis.
Question 1(a) is a directed response task. Candidates need to follow the instructions carefully to produce a
written response informed by the language, style and structure to fit a specific form, purpose and audience –
in this session the original text was an extract from a magazine article. Their reworking (or recasting) of the
original text should incorporate recognisable conventions of the text type identified in the instructions; in this
session it was a podcast (150 – 200 words) for doctors. Careful consideration of the target audience is
required. Candidates are expected to write clearly and accurately, with relevant content, and effectively for
the prescribed purpose and audience.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
A good working knowledge of linguistics is indispensable in responding to Question 1(b), where candidates
are required to compare the text produced for 1(a) with the given text analysing form, structure and
language. Here, candidates are assessed for their ability to demonstrate comparative understanding of texts
with clear reference to characteristic features, and comparative analysis of form, structure and language and
how a writer’s stylistic choices relate to audience to shape meaning. It is very important that candidates
employ some form of comparative approach in their response to Question 1(b). A topical approach
guarantees continuous comparison in which a conclusion can be used to emphasise the essential similarities
and differences between the two texts. Those who adopted a topical approach tended to be the candidates
who demonstrated the most comprehensive linguistic elements.
In Question 2, a sound knowledge of linguistics is again required as candidates are assessed on their ability
to demonstrate understanding of a text in terms of meaning, context and audience with reference to
characteristic features and their ability to analyse form, structure and language. In the case of most
candidates, there was a clear understanding of the need to make precise connections between language
features and their contribution to the full effect of the given text. Less successful responses could often have
been improved through more precise use of language to link evidence with explanatory comments; phrases
such as ‘the writer is trying to persuade the readers’ and ‘this helps the readers to imagine’ cannot be
considered useful text analysis.
Question 1
(a) The characteristic features and conventions of a podcast were recognised by most candidates: the
inclusion of a catchy title, the focus on a central idea; the concept of a host as central, the
discussion element of the text and that the text would be listened to.
Most candidates began their podcast with a brief introduction and employed some kind of closing
valediction. One successful response began with a title, ‘Morgan’s Medical Monday’. This was
followed by a hypophoric pun, ‘Is Epic really epic?’ and brought their text to an effective closure
with an endorsement of the product. Some responses offered a script with multiple voices and
others a formal essay type response. However, responses were usually written in block paragraphs
to contain the thoughts of a single speaker.
Candidates generally understood the need to address an audience of doctors, in second person,
and understood the purpose of the podcast in promoting Epic. Most often, first person was
employed together with personal endorsement. Responses included the positive features of Epic
as set out in the extract – usually in the form of a list. Some employed an informal register and
chatty tone to reflect the spoken nature of their pieces; there was some utilisation of informal
phrasing to identify with fellow practitioners, which was usually in connection to Epic’s features, e.g.
paperless solution to record keeping, doctor may access patient’s information directly either prior to
or during consultation. Some responses closed on the tricolon ‘greener, faster, better’.
Stronger responses included the recognition that a particular podcast might be one of a series
devoted to issues encountered by healthcare professionals with each podcast focusing on a
different topic each time, e.g. the inclusion of a conclusion of ‘Next time we will be considering
stress relief methods, be sure not to miss it!’. In these successful responses, the speaker was
clearly self-identified as a doctor, usually with considerable experience, and there was purposeful
utilisation (as opposed to merely inclusion) of positive points about Epic raised in the article without
admission of any of its drawbacks. Sometimes humour, with careful use of information such as
details on how to use Epic, and explanations of what it could do, were interwoven into a personal
text that spoke directly to the audience.
Weaker responses showed some misunderstandings of the text: the lack of appreciation that
‘doctors’ is a sub-set of ‘healthcare professionals’; candidates sometimes assumed that the trainer
was a Justin Bieber fan; the writer’s reliance on his ‘ancient’ (as attributed by the candidate)
‘computer’ experience directly accounted for the difficulties experienced in utilising Epic’s more
advanced ‘tabs’ interface and the requirement to input information in the correct ‘fields’; there was
the misunderstanding that the writer eventually reflects on ‘three years’ of experience in using Epic
and not just the initial training session as many candidates assumed; there was the under
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
appreciation of the role computerisation of records has played in lengthening doctors’ ‘average
workday’ which has led to them ‘hating their computers’.
Some weaker responses resorted to hard sell tactics, e.g. ‘you will definitely regret it if you do not
get Epic’, the purpose of their text being to generate sales and not offer advice with aim of
enhancing colleagues’ utilisation of time within their practices. In the least successful responses,
descriptive writing and summary of the original text predominated, which goes beyond the purpose
and genre of a blog.
These weaker responses often showed errors with use of grammar and incorrect tenses, frequently
as a result of being over ambitious with language choices. Several weaker responses quoted large
amounts from the given text in their directed response, which was rarely justified.
Getting the balance between showing understanding of the text and crafting an effective response
is the key to this question and the tendency was perhaps to be a little too safe. It is important for
candidates to be aware that understanding is not necessarily demonstrated by rearranging chunks
of the text. Often the most effective writing came at the end of responses when candidates freed
themselves from checklisting the text.
Most of the candidates abided by the guidelines concerning the length of their responses (150 –
200 words). Several candidates wrote considerably longer pieces that did not best suit the form
and purpose specified.
(b) To do well in this task, candidates need to analyse form, structure and language and to directly
compare different approaches and features in the two texts available to them, i.e. the text given
and the one that they have just created. An integrated approach is more effective for this type of
comparative task than dealing with each text separately. Where textual evidence is selected,
candidates should remember to offer clear analysis of how the writer’s choices of form, structure
and language are related to audience and shape meaning.
It is advised that candidates focus on the difference in formality, tone and registers, and collaborate
language with form and structure to give a more robust response in terms of their analysis.
With respect to form, successful candidates compared the narrative sequence of the magazine
extract with the shorter ‘spoken’ features of their promotional text. They compared the purpose of
each – to inform and entertainment in one; to inform, entertain and promote in the other. They
compared the register of both texts and related that to audience and context. They compared how
both forms contained personal opinions.
In terms of structure, stronger responses noted the declarative title of the magazine extract and
compared it with the ‘spoken’ introduction of their podcasts. More detailed responses compared
how hypophora was employed in both texts in order to arrive at an impactful conclusion. Limited
responses merely compared the amount and length of paragraphs.
Most comparisons focused on the negative language features of the extract and the positive
language features of the podcast. They compared the bias of each text and elements of humour,
such as the allusion to Justin Bieber. Candidates compared tense, noting that the extract employed
past tense until the last two paragraphs whilst their podcast employed present tense throughout to
provide a sense of immediacy and endorse what some referred to as their ‘lively, chatty tone’.
Stronger responses showed a clear distinction between the podcast and its conventions and the
conventions of the article; these responses regarded the extract and their own podcast as of equal
status and commented on both extensively. Such responses also offered a considerable amount of
detail to illustrate points, showing a strong grasp of each feature and detail selected, and how each
related to audience and shaped meaning.
Limited responses were often brief, focused more on the article – and occasionally entirely – than
on their own directed response, and tended to summarise content rather than to analyse
comparatively, with few or no supporting examples from the texts. They were often very general,
showing little awareness of how writers’ stylistic choices relate to audience and shape meaning.
Weaker responses mainly listed the conventions of an article or text intended for a listening
audience; some referred to their own writing as a podcast even though it clearly was not.
Furthermore, many weaker responses merely pointed out the variety of sentence types or length of
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
paragraphs without any reference to effect. Responses could have explored in more detail the
formality of each text type.
Question 2
The text was generally well understood and was answered with obvious engagement by most candidates.
There was a wide range of responses, with a significant number showing sophisticated understanding and
analysis. There were very few short answers.
The characteristic features and conventions of an advertisement were generally recognised by candidates:
the ‘name’ of the product/experience, what the product is and what it does, they commented on persuasive
language, catchy slogans, use of hyperbole and rhetorical questions and endorsement.
Most candidates were able to apply their understanding of the conventions and characteristic features to the
given advertisement. They commented on the bias of the form in both promoting and informing about a
unique vacation in a unique and potentially dangerous setting (with reference made to the ‘complex
personalities and behaviours’ of the gorillas and the list of volcanic mountain ranges) and considered a range
of soft sell tactics, including the use of present tense and the present participle in creating a sense of
immediacy; hyperbole in creating a sense of wonder – ‘one of the most beautiful places on earth’ – and the
use of direct address in engaging the audience, ‘you will be impressed’. The link provided at the end of the
advertisement was recognised as a characteristic feature of the form.
In terms of structure, successful responses commented on the division of the piece into headings and tips
and the ways in which the headings provided a ‘hook’, an anticipatory mood and a ‘chronology’ of the
experience. They noted that the middle sections of the text amount to a walkthrough of what a visitor might
experience based on the writer’s narration, arriving at the climactic ‘there they are’. For one candidate the
headings reflected a ‘childlike’ quality that suggested a ‘family audience’. Candidates also commented on the
tips and how these tips provided advice and guidance and exemplified the expert knowledge of The Dian
Fossey Gorilla Fund International. They reflected on how the opening endorsement, ‘a life changing
experience’, is reflected in the closing paragraph, ‘most memorable’, and that the final section emphasises
how important ecotourists are in supporting the preservation of mountain gorillas given their precarious
situation, with a link provided for further information. Responses offered some speculation that a booking
form might be provided as a result of ‘learn more about visiting’.
With respect to language analysis, successful responses explored the emotive features of the text, including
the use of the exclamative mood to express excitement and surprise. The vulnerability of the gorillas to
‘intruders’ (as one candidate suggested) was implied by the adjective ‘only’ coupled with the numerical detail
given and the Fund’s focus on protection: tourists need to follow rules because they are a ‘potential risk to
the gorillas’. The fragility of the environment was suggested by, ‘one of the few remaining tropical mountain
forests’.
Stronger responses were often characterised by greater clarity in the critical terminology employed in
analysing form, structure and language. Conversely, weaker responses often described style, mood, and
vocabulary as having ‘positive connotations’ or ‘negative connotations’, with little further elaboration or
definition. Similarly, a range of precisely constructed language effects were sometimes summed up as
‘creating an interesting image’ or ‘stopping the reader from being bored’. It is important that candidates use
precise terminology to access the higher levels; for example, ‘stream of consciousness’ and ‘personification’
were often used incorrectly. Furthermore, lower and higher frequency lexis was often confused with higher
and lower ‘orders’ of lexis and occasionally even ‘register’, where specific words were categorised as formal
and informal and often referred to as tone. The wider the critical vocabulary of the candidates, the more able
they will be to describe the precise effects of how meaning is created.
More successful responses noted that in the absence of a title, sub-headings successfully sign-post the
advertisement’s content for ease of reference; detailed responses noted that together these amount to a
précis of the content presented. These stronger responses commented on the use of numerical facts to
support the impression that writer is knowledgeable; they also noted the many instances of nouns suitable
for an informative text, some familiar and forming a natural world lexical field, e.g. ‘gorillas’, ‘species’, and
other proper nouns which indicated a more exotic bearing, e.g. ‘Rwanda’, Virunga volcanoes’.
Such stronger responses often explored the use of imagery to sell this ‘product’ with its suggestion of
exoticism and mystery: ‘the intense green of the dense vegetation’ and ‘dark shapes’. Comments were also
included on the expertise and assurances provided by the Fund with the various factual references and the
allusion to ‘expert gorilla trackers’.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Less successful responses focused on the narrative aspects of the text with the descriptive sentences
concerning the gorillas and the two ‘tips’ for visitors. These weaker responses adopted a paragraph-by -
paragraph approach, using the phrase ‘in the … paragraph’, or an approach to analysis which ranged
haphazardly across the text. It would be helpful for candidates to be aware that the discriminator ‘analysis is
coherent and effectively structured’ and similar descriptors are a feature of the higher levels; a whole-text
approach can often provide sophisticated and coherent analysis. Another consequence of the line-by-line
approach was the repetition of the same point, such as the author’s use of alliteration. It is worth
remembering that the same point can not be rewarded twice.
Basic responses offered very generalised comments. These responses identified some language features
but offered limited analysis. Such weaker responses tended to summarise the contents of the text and they
generally did this at great length.
Selection of evidence by way of quotation was not always expertly used in these weaker responses, with
some candidates quoting at too great a length, or merely referring to a range of lines. Quotation from the text
should always be precise, as concise as possible and linked to explanatory comments.
Candidates would also be well advised to avoid dependence on too formulaic an approach to the analysis of
Reading texts. The categorisation of elements of a text as representative of ‘ethos’ or ‘logos’ or ‘pathos’, for
example, needs to be precisely developed by reference to exact effects of language.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Paper 9093/21
Writing
Key messages
• Candidates should manage their time carefully, allocating an equal amount of time for each section of
the paper. Quite often the time spent on Section A seemed to have left candidates insufficient time to
meet the required word count in Section B.
• Candidates should focus on the key instructions in the questions they answer, which indicate the
specified form, content, audience and purpose of the task. For example, in Question 1(a) the key
instruction is to write the text for ‘your first blog entry’, creating a sense of ‘excitement and anticipation.’
• Candidates must write in clear, properly punctuated English, with accurate sentence demarcation, to
perform well in this exam. Often, weaker candidates lose control of grammar when they attempt to write
in long, complex sentences, and would do better to aim for clear expression in simple and compound
sentences with less variety. One error that occurred regularly was that of separating sentences with
commas rather than full stops; another common error was writing in sentence fragments. Sentence
demarcation is key, followed by accurate use of commas, and then the accurate use of a wider range of
punctuation.
• Candidates who have difficulty with tense selection should focus on writing in one tense, preferably
either the present tense or the simple past tense.
• Candidates should be encouraged to proofread carefully, particularly for accurate sentence demarcation
and for tense confusion/inconsistency. Such errors impede, sometimes seriously, the overall sense of
fluency and cohesion.
• Candidates must be aware of the need for clear paragraphing in their responses, including
paragraphing for direct speech. A secure focus on structure is crucial since it helps the reader to feel
that the candidate is in control of their writing.
• Candidates should be exposed to a wide variety of different text types, as outlined in the syllabus, so
that they become familiar with the conventions of a variety of writing forms and purposes. They should
be taught key features of those text types, to enable them to replicate these in their own writing.
General comments
A number of candidates self-penalised on the grounds of rubric infringement: some Section B responses
were appreciably short of the minimum word limit and some candidates did not answer Question 1(b).
In responses to Question 1(a), stronger responses focused clearly on the question, writing engaging blog
entries and creating anticipation by indicating to the reader what the next blog might contain. Weaker
responses consisted of simple accounts of the writer’s travels, often focusing almost totally on packing,
obtaining documents and the journey to get there. Others demonstrated the need to read the question
carefully, as they covered all 3 months in a single blog entry.
The strongest responses to Question 1(b) were from candidates who were able to maintain a close focus on
their linguistic and stylistic choices, with the relationship between these features being explained and
explored successfully. They used relevant terminology consistently and confidently, using language precisely
and appropriately. Weaker candidates focused mostly, or entirely, on the content of their piece of writing and
therefore only provided minimal analysis of their writing by indirectly outlining the structure of the piece.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Stronger responses in Section B generally had a strong sense of the appropriate form for the task
(description, essay or review), a clear focus on the question, and included appropriate stylistic conventions
as well as relevant content.
Weaker responses in Section B generally lost focus on what the task required. For example, some
responses to Question 2 were purely narrative in form. Some Question 3 responses lost focus on the
formality required of an essay and became repetitive, with the same points made several times rather than
offering a selection of reasons. Some Question 4 reviews were simple recounts of the visit to the café and
the food and drink consumed, with little in the way of critique or personal opinion about the café.
Question 1
You have recently left home and are spending three months living and studying in another country.
You have decided to write a blog about the experience.
(a) Write the text for your first blog entry, using no more than 400 words. In your writing, create
a sense of excitement and anticipation.
Some candidates demonstrated a zest for adventure in their responses to this question. The
majority of blogs were written in an appropriate semi-formal register, which created at times a lively
and engaging tone.
Stronger candidates used helpful organisational features such as subheadings and clear topic
sentences, and used evocative descriptions to reflect their excitement. One strong example from a
candidate studying in England described, ‘seaside cliffs where salt-scented wind whips through
your hair’; ‘famously English foggy mornings’ and ‘castles and palaces … equally paragons of
grand beauty and vessels of secrets and history’ – an example of effective description without
reliance on common adjectives.
Stronger responses had a clear idea of where the writer was travelling to and what they would be
studying. Candidates selected appropriate topics that allowed exploration of the theme presented
in the question. It seemed that selecting a place that the candidate was familiar with resulted in
better responses. In addition, better responses demonstrated an ability to adapt writing for an
appropriate audience, and clearly these candidates had experience of practising this genre of
writing. Stronger responses often established a tone of excitement from the very first sentence of
the writing, as in these two examples: ‘This is awesome! My studies have taken me straight to
Japan’; ‘Besides talking and learning about Italy, music is one of my favorite things ever. Adding
Italy and music together is like adding Ice cream to an Ice cream cone.’ The best looked closely at
their initial student experience and explored the emotions of being in a different place on one’s
own, for example: ‘The high street explodes with colour and confidence on Sundays when the
market is in full swing,’ and, ‘Being a new kid on the block is no shame in this slice of paradise.’
Weaker responses showed little variance in vocabulary: ‘Italy is a very nice place. The house I am
staying is very nice.’ Many were vague and focused mainly on the journey, bringing in anticipation
and excitement, but not dealing with the feeling of establishing themselves in a new area. Lots
were filled with generic comments on wonderful culture or on language problems and eating new
sorts of food. Some responses became too informal and word choice was too colloquial. Technical
accuracy slipped as a result of informality and many weaker responses were hampered by
grammatical errors, for example using commas instead of full stops between sentences. Ideas
were mostly relevant but at times undeveloped. Many missed the requirement that this had to be
the first blog entry, and degenerated into lengthy reports on what happened during the entire three
months. In one or two extreme cases, events were described that could not possibly take place
within three months.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
(b) Write a reflective commentary on your text, explaining how your linguistic choices
contribute to fulfilling the task set.
One approach that worked well for candidates was to use a Point, Evidence, Explanation format to
analyse the form, structure and language of their responses to Question 1(a). Generally,
responses would have been improved with greater attention to detail and by including evidence
from the Question 1(a) response in the commentary.
Stronger responses showed an understanding of language and the need to provide some
evaluation and analysis of how language functioned in the blog. They wrote in detail about the
specific effects of structural and language features. Such features included figurative language,
humour, hyperbole and discourse markers. They clearly identified their linguistic choices, gave
quotations, explained the reasons for the choices and what effects they hoped to have on the
reader. For example: ‘By using first person pronoun “I”, and second person plural pronoun “you”, I
make the text more personal as I address the reader directly and add to the conversational tone of
the blog. Similarly, the slang contraction “JK” conveys the idea that I am talking to someone of my
own age who I know.’
Weaker responses sometimes showed an ability to identify some basic language and structural
features, but more difficulty was demonstrated in analysis. Some candidates attempted analysis
but used general phrases such as, ‘This makes it easy for the readers to understand’. Many
included basic general commentary on the content of their blog with no relevant language or
structural points being made. Others wrote about basic things such as having written in paragraphs
‘to make the blog easier to read’ or having used commas ‘to make the sense clear’. They often
struggled to reference specific words or phrases from their article and tended to focus on simple
identification of features with little or no analysis of their effect or the ways in which they relate to
audience and shape meaning. Some responses were extremely short, wrongly identified linguistic
features, and had little or no comment on structure.
Write a descriptive piece called The Classroom. In your writing, create a sense of atmosphere, and
focus on movement and sound to help your reader imagine the scene. Write between 600 and 900
words.
A significant number of candidates successfully used the technique of a framed narrative, typically describing
a lesson from start to finish. For several candidates, the narrative details became the most significant feature
of the response, so that the ideas related to the descriptive purpose of the task were only developed in a
limited manner.
Candidates who wrote stronger responses were able to keep to the descriptive stance throughout the piece
and to create an image of the classroom as a vibrant place. Sound and movement were described with
subtlety and precision. Some candidates used contrast and described the classroom at different times, for
example before the day began and in the middle of a noisy lesson, observing the changes that had taken
place. These candidates invariably established the descriptive form in the very first paragraph or sentence,
for example: ‘Hundreds of feet stomp on the floor, some running, some swiftly walking, others taking their
sweet time. The chatting and screaming of laughing candidates echo everywhere.’
In stronger responses, a variety of linguistic techniques was used, for example metaphorical language: ‘The
sea of grey carpet hosted vibrantly coloured thrones for the children.’ One successful example used a
zooming in technique; it started above the school then gradually arrived in the classroom, focusing on
various details. Another brought some immediacy to the descriptions by writing in the present tense about
the classroom in which they were sitting the exam: ‘His legs have started silently bouncing and his fingers
drum his pen against the desk,’ and, ‘You are still entangled in hell with the sound of your arm drifting on
your paper and the voices your pen produces as it rolls and stains your paper.’
Weaker responses were sometimes planned poorly, resulting in most of the piece being about what
preceded getting to the classroom or was involved in the process of moving from one classroom to another.
Some described various students in the classroom but focused mainly on the dialogue between them. Others
began with some descriptive detail but ended up writing accounts of an incident which happened in the
classroom or stories of disastrous substitute teacher lessons. Some of the weakest responses were lacking
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
in sentence control, revealed in sentence fragments such as, ‘Watching the teacher pace back and forth.
Doing their best to cram as much knowledge in your head as they can, like a child shoves food in his mouth.’
Question 3 – Essay
In class, you have been discussing whether it is worse to have too much money or not enough. Your
teacher has asked you to write an essay on the topic, giving your opinion. Write between 600 and 900
words.
It would appear that many candidates took the lack of a form of transactional writing as reason to use fewer
rhetorical devices, and at times responses would have been improved with some adaptation to audience.
Many candidates organised their essays using discourse markers, a more appropriate approach than
incorporating sub-headings.
Stronger responses assumed an authoritative stance and maintained the appropriate form. They presented a
balanced argument showing both sides of the debate and revealed the candidate’s own opinion at the end.
The best answers were organised into paragraphs, each paragraph dealing with a different point and
introduced by a topic sentence. They convincingly and effectively used rhetorical questions and statistics,
and the strongest responses were formal in tone, presenting arguments in a well-structured and convincing
manner. They took a clear line of argument and took readers coherently through the argument point by point
to construct a convincing overall case. Stronger responses contained both an argument and a counter
argument or had some sort of evaluation of each side of the argument. For example, more nuanced
responses identified that, while in many ways a plentiful supply of money relieves someone of financial
worries in everyday life, it can also make it difficult to trust the motives of those claiming to be friends
Stronger essays often began with an opening statement to engage the reader, setting out a point of view, as
in this response: ‘It is time to face the fact – wealth is probably the most important factor in a person’s identity
in the modern world.’ They used discourse markers to structure the response and to demonstrate clear
development. Some candidates opted to use the sequential ‘Firstly’, ‘secondly’ and ‘finally’ approach, which
gives clarity and an overall impression of ideas developed clearly in terms of structure. More effective and
sophisticated responses incorporated phrases such as ‘A different viewpoint’ or ‘On the contrary’.
Weaker responses were written in a conversational style which was lacking the necessary formality and
sophistication. This resulted in the loss of the authority that the essay required. They often presented a one-
sided argument, which was often a little repetitive with the same points made several times rather than
offering a selection of reasons. They often repetitively used the words from the question: ‘It is worse not to
have enough money than to have too much money’, sometimes as much as three times in one paragraph,
with very little effort being made to vary the lexis being employed.
Many weaker essays were not structured clearly, often without any use of paragraphs. In some cases,
candidates did not employ sufficient vocabulary or control of sentence structure to express some of the more
complex ideas, for example: ‘Too little money can make your life very hard,’ and, ‘So, the point is that, when
you can access anything there’s not going to be emotions when buying them.’ Responses were sometimes
short or unfinished, while in many other cases ideas needed more adequate development.
Question 4 – Review
You recently went to a new café in your town. Write a review of the cafe, which will be published in
your local newspaper. Write between 600 and 900 words.
Candidates who wrote stronger responses were highly adept at this particular genre of writing, employing a
range of stylistic conventions in order to create a sophisticated response. They maintained an authentic
persona of an interested reviewer throughout and gave a clear account of the food, service and atmosphere.
Some used humorous touches successfully. The best gave a clear idea of a café, possibly one the writer had
frequented, and commented clearly on its qualities and failings. One more engaging review incorporated a
lengthy description of a particular confection which the writer fondly remembered baking as a child with their
grandmother and which they had not until now been able to find ‘properly made’. This enthusiasm brought
the scene to life. Such reviews gave the impression a good number of candidates had read pieces like this
before.
Weaker responses, instead of focusing on the purpose of critically reviewing the café, focussed on the
writer’s own personal likes and dislikes in the way of food and beverages in a process of listing. Others didn’t
manage to create a clear picture of the place or were critical of a member of the café staff in a way which
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
would have made the review inappropriate for publishing in a local newspaper. Some weaker reviews
contained little or no detail about the food or drinks. Such reviews often focused on the décor, service or the
condition of the toilets, and needed to show greater awareness of the intended audience.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Paper 9093/22
Writing
Key messages
• Candidates should manage their time carefully, allocating an equal amount of time for each section of
the paper. Quite often the time spent on Section A seemed to have left candidates insufficient time to
meet the required word count in Section B.
• Candidates should focus on the key instructions in the questions they answer, which indicate the
specified form, content, audience and purpose of the task. For example, in Question 1(a) the key
instruction is to write the text for a ‘short speech’ to your school, ‘persuading everyone’ to lower their
sugar consumption by ‘giving advice’ and creating a ‘sense of motivation’.
• Candidates must write in clear, properly punctuated English, with accurate sentence demarcation, to
perform well in this exam. Often, weaker candidates lose control of grammar when they attempt to write
in long, complex sentences, and would do better to aim for clear expression in simple and compound
sentences with less variety. One error that occurred regularly was that of separating sentences with
commas rather than full stops; another common error was writing in sentence fragments. Sentence
demarcation is key, followed by accurate use of commas, and then the accurate use of a wider range of
punctuation.
• Candidates who have difficulty with tense selection should focus on writing in one tense, preferably
either the present tense or the simple past tense.
• Candidates should be encouraged to proofread carefully, particularly for accurate sentence demarcation
and for tense confusion/inconsistency. Such errors impede, sometimes seriously, the overall sense of
fluency and cohesion.
• Candidates must be aware of the need for clear paragraphing in their responses, including
paragraphing for direct speech. A secure focus on structure is crucial since it helps the reader to feel
that the candidate is in control of their writing.
• Candidates should be exposed to a wide variety of different text types, as outlined in the syllabus, so
that they become familiar with the conventions of a variety of writing forms and purposes. They should
be taught key features of those text types, to enable them to replicate these in their own writing.
General comments
A number of candidates self-penalised on the grounds of rubric infringement: some Section B responses
were appreciably short of the minimum word limit and some candidates failed to answer Question 1(b) at all.
In responses to Question 1(a), stronger responses focused clearly on the question, writing engaging
speeches entries with an appropriate focus on the benefits of being in a large school. Weaker responses
consisted of simple lists of the benefits, needing more in way of an attempt to engage the audience.
The strongest responses to Question 1(b) were from candidates who were able to maintain a close focus on
their linguistic and stylistic choices, with the relationship between these features being explained and
explored successfully. They used relevant terminology consistently and confidently, using language precisely
and appropriately. Weaker responses focused entirely on the content of the piece of writing and therefore
only provided minimal analysis, usually only indirectly outlining the structure of the piece.
Stronger responses on Section B generally had a strong sense of the appropriate form for the task; (story,
article or review), a clear focus on the question and included appropriate stylistic conventions, as well as
relevant content.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Weaker responses on Section B generally lost focus on what the task required. For example, some stories
in Question 2 were in need of a sense of drama or suspense. Some responses to Question 3 were limited
in development of opinions, while some Question 4 responses were simple accounts of the event, needing
more in the way of critique or personal opinion.
Question 1
You have been learning about why much sugar is bad for you. Your headteacher has asked you to
give a short speech to the school, persuading everyone to reduce the amount of sugar they eat.
(a) Write the text for the speech, using no more than 400 words. In your writing, focus on the
atmosphere at your school, and give advice on improving diet, and create a sense of
motivation.
Nearly all candidates clearly understood the purpose and audience for this task. Degrees of
formality varied, which was to be expected given the range of cultural backgrounds across the
entry for the examination. A minority of responses were too long, which often impacted on the
candidates’ ability to write a Section B response of the required length, whereas some responses
were very short and did not fully utilise the 400 words at their disposal. Others wrote very short
responses, sometimes with fewer than 200 words, which lacked development. The majority of
answers were focused and often showed knowledge of the downsides of taking too much sugar. It
was often referred to as ‘an addiction’, or even a ‘poison’ or as a ‘silent killer’.
Stronger responses included relevant devices such as rhetorical questions, direct address and
repetition to engage the audience. They often used an effective introductory sentence as a hook,
as in this example: ‘Imagine this: a highly addictive substance, condoned by the government, sold
at every supermarket in every country during every hour of every day.’ They clearly stated the
purpose of the speech, such as in this example: ‘We‘re here today to talk about an addiction. One
that affects many of us, myself included. Sugar.’ They maintained a close focus on the speech form
as well as addressing the audience and establishing and sustaining an appropriate tone and
register. They often concluded their speech with a motivational call to action, such as in these two
examples: ‘Take this step and change your life. Eat well. Sleep well. Live long and enjoy all that
this world and this one life has to offer’; ‘I know each of you has the will power to make this crucial
change for the benefit of your future health.’
Many candidates effectively incorporated their own experience, real or imagined, into the speech
and used this as one means of persuasion. Appropriate lexis was often employed, especially for
medical conditions and discussion of food groups. A few candidates referred to suitable role
models.
In weaker responses, attention to the speech form in the opening was often overlooked and this
sometimes resulted in responses which were more article-like or essay-like in their form. They
sometimes did not utilise a paragraph structure or any discourse markers, but occasionally
included titles and sub-headings, which were not appropriate for the specified form. Some
responses were in need of suggestions of ways to improve diet and often did not include any
rhetorical devices. Such responses were often hampered by grammatical errors, for example using
commas instead of full stops between sentences. Ideas were mostly relevant but at times
undeveloped. For example, in this response, while content was generally relevant, the range of
language was limited, and errors were frequent: ‘These delights are wonderful, even the most
healthiest person on this planet cannot resist them, I can bet my life on that but sometimes they get
a teeny tiny bit too much for us which causes alot of difficulties in our day to day lives.’
(b) Write a reflective commentary on your text, explaining how your linguistic choices
contribute to fulfilling the task set.
One approach that worked well was to use a Point, Evidence, Explanation format to analyse the
form, structure and language of the response to Question 1(a). Many responses would have been
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
improved with greater attention to detail and by including evidence from the Question 1(a)
response in the commentary.
Stronger responses demonstrated an understanding of language and the need to provide some
evaluation and analysis of how language functioned in the article. These candidates wrote in detail
about the specific effects of structural and language features, such as figurative language, humour,
hyperbole and discourse markers. They clearly identified their linguistic choices, gave quotations,
explained the reasons for the choices and what effects they hoped to have on the reader. For
example: ‘I also asked rhetorical questions, combined with the collective pronoun “we”, to create a
sense of shared identity between the speaker and the audience. The use of the collective “we”
along with the imperative “must” emphasises a shared need to change our eating habits.’
Weaker responses sometimes showed an ability to identify some basic language and structural
features but demonstrated more difficulty with analysis. Some candidates attempted analysis but
used general phrases such as, ‘This makes it easy for the audience to understand’. Many included
basic general commentary on the content of the article with no relevant language or structural
points being made. Others wrote about basic things such as having written in paragraphs ‘to make
the speech easier to read’ or having used commas ‘to make things clearer’. They often struggled to
reference specific words or phrases from their article and tended to focus on simple identification of
features with little or no analysis of their effect or the ways in which they relate to audience and
shape meaning. Some responses were extremely short, wrongly identified linguistic features, and
had little or no comment on structure.
Question 2 – Story
Write a story called The Note, about a message someone received unexpectedly from an unknown
source. In your writing, create a sense of drama and suspense. Write between 600 and 900 words.
The strongest responses established and sustained a clear focus on drama and suspense, whilst the
weakest responses tended to offer a list-like series of events and were needing in terms of engagement or
narrative structure.
In stronger responses, candidates created drama and suspense from the first paragraph, for example in this
opening: ‘We could talk about many things but tell me what you want to hear about first. The day? The note?
The incident? The worry?’ This sense of drama was sustained in a clear and sophisticated manner all the
way through the narrative. Another successful opening was: ‘It had been a few hours short of four days. I
really did not know what to do any more. All I could do was sit by the shore and hope.’ Many candidates
deliberately, and successfully, delayed any revelations about the contents of the note, and its sender, until
the middle of the story. One such dramatic, and sinister, moment occurred during a concert: ‘As I shuffled
towards the instrument case to make my contribution, the hairy-faced performer stared at me without
breaking rhythm and gave me a manic grin.’ One candidate successfully used a diary format for their story,
using reverse chronology, a novel approach; another very good response focused on a suicide note found by
the speaker of the story: ‘No iota of lamentation was under-explained as the sender mentioned their gradual
descent from self-isolation, depression to gruesome self-harm, manic depression and ultimately the end.’
Weaker responses demonstrated a struggle to create a sense drama and suspense, often missing the
‘unknown source’ aspect of the question and consisting of tedious accounts, for example of a journey
instigated by a mundane note with no dramatic implications. There were also quite a number of inconclusive
endings, as if the candidate, having set up a suspenseful scenario, ran out of ideas at the end. Other weaker
responses employed plots that were too elaborate, with too many characters involved, leading to a lack of
narrative control and organisation, and drifting from one event to the next. Some used too much dialogue,
which was often poorly punctuated. Too often the candidates used a ‘telling’ and not a ‘showing’ technique,
which did not allow for a sense of drama to be created. There was a tendency to incorporate unrealistic
occurrences and expression was often hampered by frequent errors, such as in this example: ‘He looks at
me again and say “Have you been here for a, long time” he asked, removing my earphones “Sorry what did
you say” I said to him “Have you been out here for a long time” he says back to me.’
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Question 3 – Article
In class, you have been discussing the fact that people do not spend enough time together as a
family these days. Write an article for your school magazine, giving your opinion on the topic. Write
between 600 and 900 words.
Most responses to this question showed engagement and were sustained, with a good number of
suggestions as to how families could organise their lives to spend more quality time together. There were
candidates who identified that this was not always desirable if a family was dysfunctional, and in these
cases, candidates explored the options of creating your own family through a network of friends and other
adults within a community.
Stronger responses worked logically through their points, signposting each point clearly through an aptly
worded topic sentence or a subheading. Effective topic sentences included: ‘Although technology reduces
the loneliness one might feel, it also introduces a barrier between loved ones,’ and ‘Family members often, at
times without even realising it, put unnecessary and unjustified amounts of pressure on their children.’ Other
candidates made use of effective subheadings, such as: ‘Is Technology the culprit?’, ‘Grieving the demise of
Games Night’, ‘Eat, Pray and … no Love?’ Stronger responses included a variety of sentence structures,
including short sentences to make their main points clearly and complex sentences for developed
explanations. They generally showed a maturity of thought and recognised problems faced through societal
pressures for both parents and children within the family unit. Many also recognised the importance of
maintaining close contacts with the extended family, whether face-to-face or via internet platforms where
geographical separation was an issue. Blame for the loss of quality time with family was apportioned, in the
main, to technology, social media, demanding bosses and schools, societal expectations and the pandemic.
Many articles ended with a direct and meaningful message for the reader, for example: ‘There will be painful
regrets when someone close to you passes away and the realisation of thoughtlessly prioritising a screen
over a loved one truly hits home,’ and ‘Family is beautiful, family is love but family is not everything. Find
balance; make time both for yourself and your family. You owe it to yourself.’
Weaker responses tended to focus on how busy individuals are in modern life; children with school work and
social activities, parents with work and their interests or hobbies. Opinions were often left as assertions and
needed to be justified with supporting evidence, even of an anecdotal nature. Such an approach produced
quite repetitive articles which did not engage the audience. In weaker responses, candidates often recycled
one or two main points without really developing them. They often tended to focus too much on the causes
of the problem, usually the over-use of technology and social media and, in particular, the use of
smartphones at the dinner table.
Question 4 – Review
You recently went to a local event which takes place once a year in your town. Write a review of the
event, which will be posted on a travel website. Write between 600 and 900 words.
The question produced responses covering an array of events across the world. Many candidates wrote
about local events, whilst others chose to write about events that they had visited or taken part in during a
visit to another country.
Candidates who wrote stronger responses were highly adept at this particular genre of writing, employing a
range of stylistic conventions in order to create a sophisticated response. They were able to confidently use
techniques such as cynicism, irony or humour to criticise the event or to use appropriately formal language
and register to comment and review effectively. They made reference to: the circumstances in which the
event occurred; its significance to the community; how and why the event was of interest to non-locals; a
clear focus on interesting features; merely passing mention of catering and merchandising opportunities; and
comfort facilities. Some stronger responses included elements of caricature when describing individuals who
were present at the event, or running stalls or games. A number of reviews ended with an effective
conclusion, summarising the main points made in the review, such as in this example: ‘This event was
mostly well organised and showcased a diverse range of musical talent, inspirational artists who rarely
appear together on the same stage. Our team at S. Asia Travel Companion give it a qualified 4 stars out of
5.’ Others opted for a direct and enthusiastic concluding sentence: ‘Grab a friend and a camera and be sure
to experience this festival for yourself next year!’
Weaker responses often merely described the event rather than reviewing it. Candidates provided personal
accounts of what they did at the event and included very few, if any, of the qualities expected in a written
review. Comments and opinions were typically quite simplistic and poorly expressed and punctuated, for
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
example: ‘The vibe of the event is so amoozing the weather is flowing a decent wind to comfort not much
heat or not much cold its just amazing and fun to be there.’ Weaker responses were also repetitive, including
a similar commentary for each aspect of the event to which they referred, sometimes focusing at length on
aspects such as toilet and catering facilities, although these were only supplementary to the main purpose of
the event. Such candidates were only able to achieve the task in part because the content was only partially
or vaguely relevant.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Paper 9093/23
Writing
Key messages
• Candidates should manage their time carefully, allocating an equal amount of time for each section of
the paper. Quite often the time spent on Section A seemed to have left candidates insufficient time to
meet the required word count in Section B.
• Candidates should focus on the key instructions in the questions they answer, which indicate the
specified form, content, audience and purpose of the task. For example, in Question 1(a) the key
instruction is to write the text for a ‘short speech’ to the ‘new candidates’ about the ‘positive aspects of
being in a large school’, focusing on the ‘atmosphere’ and the ‘possibilities’ that your school offers.
• Candidates must write in clear, properly punctuated English, with accurate sentence demarcation, to
perform well in this exam. Often, weaker candidates lose control of grammar when they attempt to write
in long, complex sentences, and would do better to aim for clear expression in simple and compound
sentences with less variety. One error that occurred regularly was that of separating sentences with
commas rather than full stops; another common error was writing in sentence fragments. Sentence
demarcation is key, followed by accurate use of commas, and then the accurate use of a wider range of
punctuation.
• Candidates who have difficulty with tense selection should focus on writing in one tense, preferably
either the present tense or the simple past tense.
• Candidates should be encouraged to proofread carefully, particularly for accurate sentence demarcation
and for tense confusion/inconsistency. Such errors impede, sometimes seriously, the overall sense of
fluency and cohesion.
• Candidates must be aware of the need for clear paragraphing in their responses, including
paragraphing for direct speech. A secure focus on structure is crucial since it helps the reader to feel
that the candidate is in control of their writing.
• Candidates should be exposed to a wide variety of different text types, as outlined in the syllabus, so
that they become familiar with the conventions of a variety of writing forms and purposes. They should
be taught key features of those text types, to enable them to replicate these in their own writing.
General comments
A number of candidates self-penalised on the grounds of rubric infringement: some Section B responses
were appreciably short of the minimum word limit and some candidates did not answer Question 1(b).
In responses to Question 1(a), stronger responses focused clearly on the question, writing engaging
speeches with an appropriate focus on the benefits of being in a large school. Weaker responses consisted
of simple lists of the benefits, and needed more in the way of attempting to engage the audience.
The strongest responses to Question 1(b) were from candidates who were able to maintain a close focus on
their linguistic and stylistic choices, with the relationship between these features being explained and
explored successfully. They used relevant terminology consistently and confidently, using language precisely
and appropriately. Weaker responses focused entirely on the content of the piece of writing and therefore
only provided minimal analysis, usually only indirectly outlining the structure of the piece.
Stronger responses on Section B generally had a strong sense of the appropriate form for the task; (letter,
review or description), a clear focus on the question and included appropriate stylistic conventions, as well as
relevant content.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Weaker responses on Section B generally lacked focus on what the task required. For example, some
letters in Question 2 were limited in development of opinions. Some responses to Question 3 were simple
recounts of the documentary, with little in the way of critique or personal opinion, while some Question 4
responses were narrative in form rather than descriptive.
Question 1
A small local school is going to close next month, and the candidates are all going to join your
school, which is much larger. Your headteacher has asked you to give a short speech to the new
candidates about the positive aspects of being in large school.
(a) Write the text for the speech, using no more than 400 words. In your writing, focus on the
atmosphere at your school and the possibilities that it offers.
Nearly all candidates clearly understood the purpose and audience for this task. A minority of
responses were too long, which often impacted on the candidates’ ability to write a Section B
response of the required length, whereas some responses were very short and did not fully utilise
the 400 words at their disposal. Some responses were fewer than 200 words, resulting in a lack of
development.
Stronger responses tended to have a short, snappy introduction and to end concisely, rather than
using up too many words to thank the whole school and staff. They communicated a feeling of
warmth in the speech opening, showing the candidate had noted the instruction to welcome
students from a smaller establishment to a larger one. For example, a casual, jocular opening was
used by one candidate: ‘Welcome everybody to your next stomping ground … I’m your candidate
nerd …’ while a slightly more formal, but equally relevant, opening was seen in this response:
‘Welcome teachers, candidates, other members of the faculty and an additionally warm welcome to
our new candidates … Let this speech mark the beginning of our unity, as one.’ Stronger
responses showed the right idea about ‘selling’ a bigger school to new students and wrote well
about the benefits such as there being more amenities, more chances to make friendship groups
and more sporting opportunities. They also maintained a close focus on the speech form as well as
addressing the audience and establishing and sustaining an appropriate tone and register.
Many candidates effectively incorporated their own experience, real or imagined, into the speech,
such as in this example: ‘When I was young, I lived in the worst neighbourhood imaginable … Ever
since I joined Greendale High, my life flipped around. How did this happen? How do you adapt to a
new school?’ Other successful responses utilised features of effective speech writing such as
judicious listing as in, ‘we want you to feel confident, safe and secure’; and affirmation as in, ‘Rest
assured ...’.
In weaker responses, attention to the speech form in the opening was often overlooked and this
sometimes resulted in responses which were more article-like in their form. In a few responses, the
candidates’ writing was more like an advertisement for a school prospectus, and lacked some of
the rhetorical devices that would have made for a stronger connection with the audience.
Stylistically, tone was usually a little dull, as was the case in some responses which used a lot of
listing of activities and therefore became rather tedious. Weaker responses were often hampered
by grammatical errors, for example using commas instead of full stops between sentences. Ideas
were mostly relevant but at times undeveloped. For example, in this response, while content was
generally relevant, the range of language was limited, and errors were frequent: ‘On the other
hand, my school have more facilities. For example library, IT room, meeting room, science labs,
indoor activities space, and a large field. You have all you need. Studying in a large school is cool.
No confusions can be made.’
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
(b) Write a reflective commentary on your text, explaining how your linguistic choices
contribute to fulfilling the task set.
One approach that worked well was to use a Point, Evidence, Explanation format to analyse the
form, structure and language of responses to Question 1(a). Generally, responses would have
been improved with greater attention to detail and by including evidence from the Question 1(a)
response in the commentary.
In stronger responses, candidates used examples from their text, identified linguistic and structural
features and commented on their effect. Many candidates began their commentary by reflecting on
the form, purpose and audience for their speech; the best responses did this briefly and concisely,
whereas weaker responses tended to recycle the question in unnecessary detail. Stronger
responses showed an understanding of language and the need to provide some evaluation and
analysis of how language functioned in the speech. They wrote in detail about the specific effects
of structural and language features, such as hyperbole, figurative language and humour. They
clearly identified their linguistic choices, gave quotations, explained the reasons for the choices and
what effects they hoped to have on the reader, for example: ‘I address the audience in my writing
successfully through the use of personification in “Peterhead prides itself …” which ties into the
relationship with the audience and helps ease the audience by giving the sense that Peterhead is
not a mass of unknown candidates but a collective group.’
Weaker responses sometimes showed an ability to identify some basic language and structural
features, but more difficulty was demonstrated in analysis. Some candidates attempted analysis
but used general phrases such as, ‘I used simple language so the students would not get bored,’
or, ‘The choice of words makes it clear for the audience’. Many included basic, general
commentary on the content of the article with no relevant language or structural points being made.
They often struggled to reference specific words or phrases from their speech and tended to focus
on simple identification of features, with little or no analysis of their effect or the ways in which they
relate to audience and shape meaning. Some responses were extremely short, wrongly identified
linguistic features, and had little or no comment on structure.
Question 2 – Letter
You recently read a newspaper article called Why all children should learn to cook. Readers have
been invited to write letters in response to this article. You decide to write a letter, giving your
opinion. Write between 600 and 900 words.
Arguments in the response ranged from improving the curriculum to home cooking, and effective responses
were often characterised by discourse markers such as ‘firstly’, ‘however’ and ‘moreover’. Many candidates
produced a comprehensive and thorough argument to support the idea of children learning to cook, linking it
to cognitive development and life skills. Many candidates wrote from a first-person point of view, some with
greater success than others. Where a persona had been created, the writing tended to be more authentic
and engaging.
Candidates who wrote stronger responses showed an ability leap into an imagined persona, and wrote
convincing letters which began clearly, such as in these examples: ‘I am a recent retiree from a long-
standing career as a chef …’ and, ‘As a father of three children, I …’. One candidate posed as a nutritionist,
a successful persona as it enabled the candidate to adopt a knowledgeable tone of voice in the introductory
section where some credible context was given about the rising levels of obesity and the impact of the
pandemic on children’s physical health due to over-eating. The response was well developed with a number
of arguments. Stronger responses were written in a concise, controlled style with relevant choices of
vocabulary: ‘An appalling number of children are growing up with the normalisation of fast food, rather than
home cooking, which is rather worrying.’ This candidate established an argument in favour of ‘involving our
kids in the kitchen … the sooner they become desensitised to the sight of broccoli or egg plant, the better …’.
Other candidates successfully used humour, such as in this example: ‘There is an obvious lack of drive when
it comes to the admittedly frustrating task of teaching a child not to grate their own fingers while preparing a
coleslaw dish.’
In weaker responses, candidates struggled to create a realistic persona and some lapsed into narrative,
recounting their own childhood experiences of learning to cook and therefore not really addressing the
question. Some candidates wrote one-sided answers supported by a list of reasons, often ending abruptly
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
with a one-sentence conclusion; meanwhile, a lack of structure was observed in a small number of
responses, with more attention needing to be paid to the need for an appropriate letter format with opening
and closing salutations and clear paragraphing. Other responses contained points that were made clearly
but needed development.
Question 3 – Review
You have just seen a TV documentary about wildlife in the Arctic and Antarctic regions. Write a
review of the documentary, which will be posted on a conservation website. Write between 600 and
900 words.
Many candidates who chose this question showed a genuine interest in the subject matter, which was
usually reflected through positive and sometimes effective language. For example, one candidate described
the landscape as ‘magical.’ The question was generally answered quite effectively, and most candidates
grasped the particular language and structure needed for a review, whether positive or critical. There were
few critical reviews, but they were sometimes very dramatic and insightful.
Stronger reviews were structured clearly, with some effectively deployed subheadings. They gave clear
recommendations or criticisms, and provided plenty of detail to get across a real feel for the documentary.
They fully engaged with the content and style of the documentary and were able to recount its strengths and
weaknesses and to maintain a critical tone and style. The conventions of review writing were sometimes
employed to good effect, for example using star ratings or marks out of ten. The website format was
indicated by some, with the inclusion of website email addresses. Naming the programme also enabled
candidates to write convincingly, for example ‘The King of Wildlife’. Candidates successfully employed
emotive language to convey a strong point of view, such as in this example: ‘It was sickening to see how a
polar bear could just die from starvation.’ Such reviews were structured well and clearly, concentrating on a
different aspect of the documentary – for example music, voiceover narration and camerawork – in each
paragraph. Many stronger reviews concluded successfully with summative comments, such as in this
example: ‘Overall, this documentary is true art; life-changing, perspective-altering. This has to be one of the
most powerful and emotional documentaries of all time. It combines the imagery of a multi-million dollar
feature film with a genuine message to the people.’
Some weaker responses went little further than describing the content of the documentary, while some
answers needed more in the way of development and felt list-like. A few weaker reviews omitted the
expression of a view; such candidates were only able to achieve the task in part because the content was
only partially or vaguely relevant to the form and purpose of a review.
Write a descriptive piece called Top of the World, about being at the top of a mountain. In your
writing, focus on the sights and sound to help your reader imagine the scene. Write between 600 and
900 words.
In stronger pieces, candidates kept to the descriptive stance throughout and created an image of the summit
as a beautiful place inspiring awe. Sights and sound were described with subtlety and precision. Some
candidates described the summit at different times, for example in the morning, in the afternoon and before
sunset, observing the changes that had taken place. Stronger pieces invariably established the descriptive
form in the very first paragraph or sentence, for example: ‘It’s blinding white at the top. No footprints scar the
snow as you ascend to the peak.’
Stronger pieces included a variety of linguistic techniques, for example personification: ‘The ground beneath
you still bitter and angry that it has somehow been overcome, remains as treacherous and unstable as ever.’
Metaphorical language was also used well, as in this example: ‘Over the edge of the cliff, the clouds form a
turbulent sea, rising up and heaving to this energetic wind.’ One able candidate used long, complex,
accurately constructed sentences to create descriptive effects when personifying a river that ran down from
the top of the mountain. The description included a number of less common vocabulary choices such as:
‘meandered’, ‘traversed’, ‘cascaded’, ‘pounding’. Also, more technical vocabulary was employed such as;
‘rivulets’, ‘glaciers’, and ‘gully’. The choice of vocabulary combined with the lengthy, complex sentences
created a real sense of movement.
Weaker pieces sometimes included irrelevant content that was outside the requirements of the task, such as
descriptions of the preparations for the mountaineering trip. Some candidates tried to convey the heat of the
day through rather clichéd statements, such as: ‘deafening silence’ and ‘fluffy clouds.’ Some of the weakest
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
responses were lacking sentence control, with sentence fragments and commas used instead of full stops: ‘It
all just seemed like a patchwork of colours, looked straight out of a van goh painting. The clouds touched my
face, I could see the clouds in an eye level.’
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Paper 9093/31
Language Analysis
Key messages
Examination candidates entering 9093/31 are required to analyse sets of language data and provide
cohesive commentary on their findings.
The key skills required by Paper 3 are provided as the four assessment objectives applicable to the paper:
understanding (AO1), writing AO2), conceptualisation (AO4) and data handling (AO5). Candidates should be
aware of the demands of the assessment objectives and the ways in which available marks are weighted
under each one. Section A has the following marks available: AO2, 5 marks; AO4, 5 marks, and AO5, 15
marks. In Section B, the assessment objectives and their weightings are different: AO1 carries up to 5
marks; for AO4 there are up to 15 marks available, and for AO5, there are 5 marks.
There are, therefore, 25 marks available for each question. With that in mind, candidates are advised to
divide the examination time equally in order for them to provide as full a response as possible in both of the
sections. In this series, some sustained and thoughtful work was seen in both sections, indicating that the
examination time had been put to best use.
General comments
Overall, candidates engaged with the stimulus material at a good level in both sections of the examination
paper. Content in each of the sections was found to be meaningful and most candidates presented
sustained, cohesive responses using an appropriate register.
Some brief responses were seen. Such responses could only be described as ‘limited’ according to the level
descriptors outlined in the mark scheme, as they were limited by their own brevity and therefore
undeveloped. In some cases, elaborate response plans had been produced at the detriment of the full essay.
Although planning is advised to an extent, these should remain brief, meaningful, and comprise useful
pointers to be used in the sustained final response.
Section A
Question 1
Candidates were advised to refer to specific details from Texts A, B and C, as well as to ideas and examples
from their wider study of language change in order to produce their analysis. Most responses attempted
analysis of all three data sources. Where fewer than three data sources were used, it was not possible for
marks to be awarded above Level 3 of the mark scheme.
Writing
Overall, responses demonstrated a clear control of expression with ideas expressed in a logical, fluent
sequence of paragraphs which showed a progression of ideas. Stronger responses made accurate use of a
wide range of technical terminology, whereas weaker responses described their findings in general terms.
The structure of stronger responses progressed ideas through a series of linguistic frameworks which
included graphology, orthography, lexis, grammar, morphology, pragmatics or semantics. Although it is not a
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
requirement for a response to be structured in this way, clearer analytical skills were demonstrated where
such an approach had been taken.
Most responses acknowledged where on the developmental timeline of the English language Text A sat,
although relevance of content was sometimes obscured by long and generalised historic or sociological
consideration. This approach resulted in discursive writing which contained some irrelevant material, rather
than the focused, analytical writing required by this paper.
Most candidates analysed all three sources to an extent, with the major portion of the analysis focussing on
Text A. Weaker responses tended to provide analysis of each source in the order in which it was presented
in the question paper; stronger responses interwove examples of data to achieve synthesis. Where cohesion
was achieved, an increased level of development was demonstrated. Where there was no cohesion, a
resulting lack of development of the overall work detracted from the crafting of the writing.
Conceptualisation
In this series, relevant linguistic issues, concepts, methods and approaches were referenced which indicated
a broad range of wider reading. These included Hallidayan functional linguistics, the theory of lexical gaps,
Schmidt’s wave model, Hockett’s random fluctuation theory, technological development in printing, and
Chen’s S-curve model. Such references were generally clearly understood, with stronger responses
incorporating an increased level of detail, some of which was insightful. However, as Text A represented
written material with no phonological representation, reference to Jesperson and the Great Vowel Shift was
not necessarily useful, especially where it was applied to the lexical item publick. More useful was the
occasional insightful reference to Bodini and Didot’s typeface which removed the medial S during the 1790s,
not long after Text A had been published. Nonetheless, the 9093 syllabus is not prescriptive with regard to
appropriate theoretical examples and any which were cited relevantly were credited.
Confident responses provided examples of how and why the theory to which they made reference was
relevant by making a careful selection from the texts. Weaker responses demonstrated some knowledge and
understanding of linguistic issues, concepts, methods and approaches but were not always fully developed
or they were not applied to any text selection. This was seen particularly where technological influences were
discussed; often there was brief mention of Caxton’s invention but in weaker responses this was not
investigated further in relation to any evidence.
The linguistic issue of etymology and the part it plays in language change over time was frequently
referenced with some developed discussion of French and Latin influences, using receipts, and Gratitude, for
example. Moreover, blending, hyphenation and compounding, pejoration and amelioration were generally
understood well with examples such as prosecute from Text B forming the basis of some developed
analysis.
Data handling
As in previous series, weaker responses misunderstood the use of the medial (or long) S in Text A, with
some claiming it to be a phonemic symbol rather than the archaic grapheme which was in use at the time of
writing (1739). Stronger responses acknowledged events and advancements which had contributed to its
eventual obsolescence, to describe the approximate time of change and compare this feature to present day
use. There was also some developed commentary on the use of ligature in a ct consonant cluster and the
Greco-Roman Œconomy.
Mainly, however, analyses of change included lexical and orthographical items from Text A including
compleat and topick and the use of apostrophe of elision in look’d and distinguish’d. Weaker analysis used
mainly lexical items along with some grammatical items such as the compound House-Wives and
hyphenated expression of Great-Britain. There was also much discussion of capitalisation of abstract and
proper nouns as seen in Text A. Weaker responses tended to describe this feature as ‘random capitalisation’
rather than providing more thorough exploration of why Advice, Assistance or Employment, for example, had
been capitalised.
Most responses attempted to analyse the sentence constructions of Text A, comparing them to those
expected by a contemporary audience; not all discussion used accurate labelling of complex-compound
constructions, but most understood the almost conversational yet perhaps overly polite register of the text
and the effects and impacts that it may have had on its original audience.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
The n-Gram in Text C offered the opportunity to analyse the comparative pragmatic uses of gendered terms
of address. Graphic representation of the data was clearly understood, although there was a tendency in
weaker responses merely to copy out the numerical data from the y axis without clear observations
pertaining to language change. Such an approach is a form of paraphrase rather than analysis and as such
offers no development to a response.
Section B
Question 2
Understanding
A good level of understanding was demonstrated in most responses of how the IPA chart of phonemic
representation of speech should be interpreted, although in Paper 31 responses this series, incidences of
use of the transcription were infrequent.
Some weaker responses tended to focus solely on Henry’s utterances in attempt to reveal whether his
linguistic competencies were appropriate for his age. Such an approach led to missed opportunities to
analyse the father’s role in the conversation and the extent to which his scaffolding led to Henry’s extended
length of utterance and his overt use of imagination. Thus, the full dynamics of the conversation were left
unexplored.
However, other more confident responses acknowledged the way in which the father was using child-
directed speech in terms of questioning technique, intonation, recasting and positive reinforcement, and how
this aided Henry’s speech patterns to progress. Confident responses demonstrated understanding of how
the father led the fulfilled adjacency pairs and how the child participated in turn-taking.
Confident responses used a wide range of technical terminology with accuracy, demonstrating their deeper
understanding of the characteristic features rather than merely describing certain features in general terms
and without further explanation.
Conceptualisation
Analysis was quick to label Henry in terms of his level of linguistic competence. Weaker responses
automatically assigned Henry to Piaget’s preoperational stage and described him as post-telegraphic as his
age (5 years) had been supplied in the preamble to the task. Insightful analysis revealed evidence of
Piagetian concrete operational tendencies in Henry’s utterances as there was some evidence of reasoning in
the conditionality of his jokes.
Weaker responses made brief reference to the approaches taken by a variety of theorists, which included
Bruner and Skinner, but did not develop analysis by providing sufficient evidence from the data source. In
some cases, no data were provided and so there was no synthesis or cohesion. Moreover, where only brief
mention of a theorist’s name was provided, the reference was incomplete.
Confident responses analysed the father’s scaffolding technique in relation to Bruner and in developed
analysis relating to Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. Such responses provided evidence from the
utterances towards the end of the transcription with Henry’s recasting of his own utterance, demonstrating
his explanation of cause and effect to this father: when we took off the label it was just broke by itself ... we
just took the label off so we needed you to fix that.
The transcription offered much opportunity for analysis in relation to Hallidayan functions, the imaginative
function in particular. Henry’s utterances also evidenced the representational, personal and heuristic
functions: I can do it with a glass, I need to have one now and why did ...
There was some developed analysis supported by references to Chomsky’s Language Acquisition Device
and Universal Grammar, with negation in have you never heard and the virtuous error of past tense buyed
being the items analysed most frequently.
Data handling
Some responses attempted phonological analysis to an extent and generally did not describe the glottal stop
in /wɔːʔə/, nor offer opinion on why Henry’s utterance in that particular instance might be different from
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
anything seen in the father’s utterances. Weaker responses merely suggested that Henry had not reached
his expected milestones.
There was general observation of competent turn-taking with fulfilled adjacency pairs and some cooperative
overlap at line 10 acknowledged to be due to Henry’s excitement.
Most responses included analysis of prosodic features. Weaker commentary explained that there was
different pitch in the intonation of the father’s questioning technique, whereas stronger responses explored
more fully the nature of the pitch and whether it implied whether or not a response was necessary. Prosody
was also analysed in the father’s WOW and Henry’s EXPLODE where each interlocutor used raised volume
for a specific and different purpose.
Further data selections were made to analyse Henry’s use of contraction, I’ll, conjunction and, deletion of
initial syllable in conjunction cause to separate clauses and virtuous error ive. Confident responses described
these linguistic features using an accurate range of technical terminology and developed commentary.
Overall, responses provided a careful selection of language data to evidence analysis which was at times
synthesised in an insightful manner by confident candidates.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Paper 9093/32
Language Analysis
Key messages
Examination candidates entering 9093/32 are required to analyse sets of language data and provide
cohesive commentary on their findings.
The key skills required by Paper 3 are described by the four assessment objectives applicable to the paper:
understanding (AO1), writing AO2), conceptualisation (AO4) and data handling (AO5). Candidates should be
aware of the demands of the assessment objectives and the ways in which available marks are weighted
under each one. Section A has the following marks available: AO2, 5 marks; AO4, 5 marks, and AO5, 15
marks. In Section B, the assessment objectives and their weightings are different: AO1 carries up to 5
marks; for AO4 there are up to 15 marks available, and for AO5, there are 5 marks.
There are, therefore, 25 marks available for each question. With that in mind, candidates are advised to
divide the examination time equally in order for them to provide as full a response as possible in both of the
sections. In this series, some sustained and thoughtful work was seen, indicating that the examination time
had been put to best use.
General comments
Overall, candidates produced sustained, cohesive responses using an appropriate register, although some
brief responses were seen. Brief responses could only be described as ‘limited’ according to the level
descriptors outlined in the mark scheme as they were limited by their own lack of development.
In some cases, elaborate plans had been produced at the detriment of the full essay. Although planning is
advised to an extent, these should remain brief, meaningful, and comprise useful pointers to be used in the
sustained final response.
In general, although there were some lapses into generalised descriptions of linguistic features, candidates
were able to use a good range of linguistic terminology.
Section A
Question 1
Candidates were advised to refer to specific details from Texts A, B and C, as well as to ideas and examples
from their wider study of language change in order to produce their analysis. Most responses attempted
analysis of all three data sources. Where fewer than three data sources were used, it was not possible for
marks to be awarded above Level 3 of the mark scheme.
Writing
Overall, responses demonstrated a clear control of expression with ideas expressed in a logical, fluent
sequence of paragraphs which showed a progression of ideas. Stronger responses made accurate use of a
wide range of technical terminology, whereas weaker responses described findings in general terms.
Most responses acknowledged where on the developmental timeline of the English language Text A sat,
although relevance of content was sometimes obscured by long and generalised historic or sociological
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
consideration. This approach resulted in discursive writing which contained some irrelevant material, rather
than the focused, analytical writing required by this paper.
The structure of stronger responses also progressed ideas through a series of linguistic frameworks which
included graphology, orthography, lexis, grammar, morphology, pragmatics or semantics. Although it is not a
requirement for a response to be structured in this way, clearer analytical skills were demonstrated where
such an approach had been taken.
Most candidates analysed all three sources to an extent, with the major portion of the analysis exploring Text
A. Weaker responses tended to provide analysis of each source in the order in which it was presented in the
question paper; stronger responses interwove examples of data to achieve synthesis. Where cohesion was
achieved, an increased level of development was demonstrated. Where there was no cohesion, a lack of
development of the overall work detracted from the overall crafting of the writing.
Conceptualisation
The 9093 syllabus is not prescriptive with regard to appropriate theoretical examples and any which were
cited relevantly were credited. In this series, relevant linguistic issues, concepts, methods and approaches
were referenced which indicated a broad range of wider reading included Hallidayan functional linguistics,
the theory of lexical gaps, Schmidt’s wave model, Hockett’s random fluctuation theory, technological
development in printing, and Chen’s S-curve model. Such references were generally clearly understood, with
stronger responses incorporating an increased level of detail, some of which was insightful.
However, as Text A represented written material with no phonological representation, reference to Jesperson
and the Great Vowel Shift was not necessarily useful. Candidates made this reference particularly in
analysing Text C’s gaol and jail where there was visible difference in the vowel/diphthong cluster, instead of
concentrating on the change over time of the orthographic representation of the initial phoneme.
Confident responses provided examples of how and why the theory to which they made reference was
relevant by making a careful selection from the texts. Weaker responses demonstrated some knowledge and
understanding of linguistic issues, concepts, methods and approaches but were not always fully developed
or they were not applied to any text selection. This was seen particularly where technological influences were
discussed; often there was brief mention of Caxton’s invention, but in weaker responses this was not
investigated further in relation to any evidence.
In some cases, responses were weakened to an extent with lengthy discussion on the literary qualities of Fr.
Farnall’s contribution to Text A, for example in the mental darkness, the stubborn tempers, the hopeless
spirits, and the vicious habits on which the master has to work which was cited by the authors of the report.
In 9093 Paper 3, it is important to sustain a linguistic rather than literary analysis. Where evidence from the
text is embedded, quotes should be succinct to avoid wasting words and valuable examination time in
copying out long sections of the stimulus material.
In close reading of the texts, the concepts of borrowing, narrowing, pejoration and amelioration were evident;
these concepts were generally understood well with examples such as juvenile, vice and want forming the
basis of some developed analysis.
Data handling
Most candidates acknowledged the formality of the tenor of Text A in that the material was extracted from a
report from 1861 and were able to offer ideas concerning perceived graphological differences between the
text and contemporary report writing. These included reference to Roman numerals rather than bullet points,
closed as opposed to open punctuation and a similar clarity of paragraphing to separate ideas.
The text was rich in lexical items which could have been selected. Analysis by most candidates focused on
paupers, garrets and thither. Weaker analysis used mainly those items which were provided in the notes
which followed Text A, although there was some more confident exploration of physiognomy and in loco
parentis. Both of these selections provided the opportunity to introduce reference to etymological
consideration which developed the analysis.
Exploration of Text B, which illustrated change over time in pragmatic use of nouns alongside class led in
some cases to long socioeconomic discussion which lost focus at times. Stronger responses related ideas
from this text directly to this neglected class of children as seen in Text A to provide cohesion to the analysis.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
The n-Gram in Text C offered the opportunity to analyse the comparative uses of nouns jail and gaol.
Graphic representation of the data was clearly understood, although there was a tendency in weaker
responses merely to copy out the numerical data from the y axis without any clear observations pertaining to
language change. Such an approach is a form of paraphrase rather than analysis and as such offers no
development to a response. Stronger responses referred to knowledge and understanding of the concept of
etymology to analyse reasons for the orthographic change that the n-Gram demonstrated.
Section B
Question 2
Understanding
In general, there was a good understanding of the nature and flow of the conversation; responses detailed a
number of the characteristic features evidenced by the utterances of the interlocutors. These included
competent turn taking, mostly fulfilled adjacency pairs, Aria’s use of tense, negation, pronoun, preposition
and pre-modifier, and sentence construction.
Some weaker responses tended to focus solely on Aria’s utterances in attempt to reveal whether her
linguistic competencies were appropriate for her age. Such an approach led to missed opportunities to
analyse the mother’s role in the conversation and the extent to which her scaffolding led to Aria’s extended
length of utterance oh heres another big tower (1) look thats going down the tower which was rich in
linguistic complexity. Thus, the full dynamics of the conversation were left unexplored.
However, other more confident responses acknowledged the way in which the mother used child-directed
speech in terms of questioning technique, intonation and positive reinforcement, and how this aided Arias’s
speech patterns to progress.
Confident responses used a wide range of technical terminology with accuracy, demonstrating a deeper
understanding of the characteristic features. Some responses, however, merely described minor features in
general terms and were in need of further explanation.
Conceptualisation
Analysis was quick to label Aria in terms of her level of linguistic competence. Weaker responses
automatically assigned Aria to Piaget’s preoperational stage and describing her as ‘telegraphic’ as her age (4
years) had been supplied in the preamble to the task. Insightful analysis revealed evidence of post-
telegraphic utterances, seen particularly towards the end of the transcription. The stronger responses in
Section B of Paper 3 will always analyse the data before labelling any child interlocutor’s linguistic
competence and stage of acquisition.
Weaker responses made brief reference to the approaches taken by a variety of theorists which included
Bruner and Skinner, but did not develop analysis by providing sufficient evidence from the data source. In
some cases, no data were provided and so there was no synthesis or cohesion. Moreover, where only brief
mention of a theorist’s name was provided, the reference was incomplete.
Confident responses analysed the mother’s scaffolding technique in relation to Bruner and in developed
analysis to Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. Such responses provided evidence from the
utterances towards the end of the transcription where Aria challenged her mother in no no /ð/ the sheeps go
(.) wet. Where this utterance was embedded as evidence there was additional opportunity to introduce
Chomsky’s Language Acquisition Device and Universal Grammar, as the virtuous error of go was overt.
The transcription offered much opportunity for analysis in relation to Hallidayan functions, the interactional
function in particular. Aria’s thank you drew much discussion in terms of the child’s behavioural competence;
where discussion on this aspect retained its linguistic stance, focus was maintained.
Data handling
Analysis of prosodic features was attempted in most responses and this included that seen in the mother’s
raised pitch at the end of her questions and the raised volume in Aria’s HERES ONE. Deeper analysis of
prosody included the mother’s stress in no thats a horsie and thats a cow which led to informed analysis of
the role of deixis in the child language acquisition.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
A further example from the data which was used confidently at times was Aria’s pluralisation of horsies and
her application of the same morphologic rule to the irregular sheeps. Nonetheless, very few candidates took
the opportunity to develop such commentary by discussing the way in which the child-directed speech
applied the diminutive form in an inconsistent manner.
Further data selections were made to analyse Aria’s use of contraction and her simple subject-verb-object
sentence construction in weve found them, which illustrated her overall fluency and competence in
participating in conversation in a natural and relaxed fashion.
Overall, responses provided a careful selection of language data to evidence analysis which was at times
synthesised in an insightful manner by confident candidates. Stronger responses described these linguistic
features using an accurate range of technical terminology; where this was applied a strong linguistic
approach was evident.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Paper 9093/33
Language Analysis
Key messages
Examination candidates entering 9093/33 are required to analyse sets of language data and provide
cohesive commentary on their findings.
The key skills required by Paper 3 are provided as the four assessment objectives applicable to the paper:
understanding (AO1), writing AO2), conceptualisation (AO4) and data handling (AO5). Candidates should be
aware of the demands of the assessment objectives and the ways in which available marks are weighted
under each one. Section A has the following marks available: AO2, 5 marks; AO4, 5 marks, and AO5, 15
marks. In Section B, the assessment objectives and their weightings are different: AO1 carries up to 5
marks; for AO4 there are up to 15 marks available, and for AO5, there are 5 marks.
There are, therefore, 25 marks available for each question. With that in mind, candidates are advised to
divide the examination time equally in order for them to provide as full a response as possible in both of the
sections. In this series, some sustained and thoughtful work was seen in both sections, indicating that the
examination time had been put to best use.
General comments
Overall, candidates engaged with the stimulus material at a good level in both sections of the examination
paper. Content in each of the sections was found to be meaningful and most candidates presented
sustained, cohesive responses using an appropriate register.
Some brief responses were seen. Such responses could only be described as ‘limited’ according to the level
descriptors outlined in the mark scheme, as they were limited by their own brevity and therefore
undeveloped. In some cases, elaborate response plans had been produced at the detriment of the full essay.
Although planning is advised to an extent, these should remain brief, meaningful, and comprise useful
pointers to be used in the sustained final response.
Section A
Question 1
Candidates were advised to refer to specific details from Texts A, B and C, as well as to ideas and examples
from their wider study of language change in order to produce their analysis. Most responses attempted
analysis of all three data sources. Where fewer than three data sources were used, it was not possible for
marks to be awarded above Level 3 of the mark scheme.
Writing
Overall, responses demonstrated a clear control of expression with ideas expressed in a logical, fluent
sequence of paragraphs which showed a progression of ideas. Stronger responses made accurate use of a
wide range of technical terminology, whereas weaker responses described their findings in general terms.
The structure of stronger responses progressed ideas through a series of linguistic frameworks which
included graphology, orthography, lexis, grammar, morphology, pragmatics or semantics. Although it is not a
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
requirement for a response to be structured in this way, clearer analytical skills were demonstrated where
such an approach had been taken.
Most responses acknowledged where on the developmental timeline of the English language Text A sat,
although relevance of content was sometimes obscured by long and generalised historic or sociological
consideration. This approach resulted in discursive writing which contained some irrelevant material, rather
than the focused, analytical writing required by this paper.
Most candidates analysed all three sources to an extent, with the major portion of the analysis focussing on
Text A. Weaker responses tended to provide analysis of each source in the order in which it was presented
in the question paper; stronger responses interwove examples of data to achieve synthesis. Where cohesion
was achieved, an increased level of development was demonstrated. Where there was no cohesion, a
resulting lack of development of the overall work detracted from the crafting of the writing.
Conceptualisation
In this series, relevant linguistic issues, concepts, methods and approaches were referenced which indicated
a broad range of wider reading. These included Hallidayan functional linguistics, the theory of lexical gaps,
Schmidt’s wave model, Hockett’s random fluctuation theory, technological development in printing, and
Chen’s S-curve model. Such references were generally clearly understood, with stronger responses
incorporating an increased level of detail, some of which was insightful. However, as Text A represented
written material with no phonological representation, reference to Jesperson and the Great Vowel Shift was
not necessarily useful, especially where it was applied to the lexical item publick. More useful was the
occasional insightful reference to Bodini and Didot’s typeface which removed the medial S during the 1790s,
not long after Text A had been published. Nonetheless, the 9093 syllabus is not prescriptive with regard to
appropriate theoretical examples and any which were cited relevantly were credited.
Confident responses provided examples of how and why the theory to which they made reference was
relevant by making a careful selection from the texts. Weaker responses demonstrated some knowledge and
understanding of linguistic issues, concepts, methods and approaches but were not always fully developed
or they were not applied to any text selection. This was seen particularly where technological influences were
discussed; often there was brief mention of Caxton’s invention but in weaker responses this was not
investigated further in relation to any evidence.
The linguistic issue of etymology and the part it plays in language change over time was frequently
referenced with some developed discussion of French and Latin influences, using receipts, and Gratitude, for
example. Moreover, blending, hyphenation and compounding, pejoration and amelioration were generally
understood well with examples such as prosecute from Text B forming the basis of some developed
analysis.
Data handling
As in previous series, weaker responses misunderstood the use of the medial (or long) S in Text A, with
some claiming it to be a phonemic symbol rather than the archaic grapheme which was in use at the time of
writing (1739). Stronger responses acknowledged events and advancements which had contributed to its
eventual obsolescence, to describe the approximate time of change and compare this feature to present day
use. There was also some developed commentary on the use of ligature in a ct consonant cluster and the
Greco-Roman Œconomy.
Mainly, however, analyses of change included lexical and orthographical items from Text A including
compleat and topick and the use of apostrophe of elision in look’d and distinguish’d. Weaker analysis used
mainly lexical items along with some grammatical items such as the compound House-Wives and
hyphenated expression of Great-Britain. There was also much discussion of capitalisation of abstract and
proper nouns as seen in Text A. Weaker responses tended to describe this feature as ‘random capitalisation’
rather than providing more thorough exploration of why Advice, Assistance or Employment, for example, had
been capitalised.
Most responses attempted to analyse the sentence constructions of Text A, comparing them to those
expected by a contemporary audience; not all discussion used accurate labelling of complex-compound
constructions, but most understood the almost conversational yet perhaps overly polite register of the text
and the effects and impacts that it may have had on its original audience.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
The n-Gram in Text C offered the opportunity to analyse the comparative pragmatic uses of gendered terms
of address. Graphic representation of the data was clearly understood, although there was a tendency in
weaker responses merely to copy out the numerical data from the y axis without clear observations
pertaining to language change. Such an approach is a form of paraphrase rather than analysis and as such
offers no development to a response.
Section B
Question 2
Understanding
A good level of understanding was demonstrated in most responses of how the IPA chart of phonemic
representation of speech should be interpreted, although in Paper 33 responses this series, incidences of
use of the transcription were infrequent.
Some weaker responses tended to focus solely on Henry’s utterances in attempt to reveal whether his
linguistic competencies were appropriate for his age. Such an approach led to missed opportunities to
analyse the father’s role in the conversation and the extent to which his scaffolding led to Henry’s extended
length of utterance and his overt use of imagination. Thus, the full dynamics of the conversation were left
unexplored.
However, other more confident responses acknowledged the way in which the father was using child-
directed speech in terms of questioning technique, intonation, recasting and positive reinforcement, and how
this aided Henry’s speech patterns to progress. Confident responses demonstrated understanding of how
the father led the fulfilled adjacency pairs and how the child participated in turn-taking.
Confident responses used a wide range of technical terminology with accuracy, demonstrating their deeper
understanding of the characteristic features rather than merely describing certain features in general terms
and without further explanation.
Conceptualisation
Analysis was quick to label Henry in terms of his level of linguistic competence. Weaker responses
automatically assigned Henry to Piaget’s preoperational stage and described him as post-telegraphic as his
age (5 years) had been supplied in the preamble to the task. Insightful analysis revealed evidence of
Piagetian concrete operational tendencies in Henry’s utterances as there was some evidence of reasoning in
the conditionality of his jokes.
Weaker responses made brief reference to the approaches taken by a variety of theorists, which included
Bruner and Skinner, but did not develop analysis by providing sufficient evidence from the data source. In
some cases, no data were provided and so there was no synthesis or cohesion. Moreover, where only brief
mention of a theorist’s name was provided, the reference was incomplete.
Confident responses analysed the father’s scaffolding technique in relation to Bruner and in developed
analysis relating to Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. Such responses provided evidence from the
utterances towards the end of the transcription with Henry’s recasting of his own utterance, demonstrating
his explanation of cause and effect to this father: when we took off the label it was just broke by itself ... we
just took the label off so we needed you to fix that.
The transcription offered much opportunity for analysis in relation to Hallidayan functions, the imaginative
function in particular. Henry’s utterances also evidenced the representational, personal and heuristic
functions: I can do it with a glass, I need to have one now and why did ...
There was some developed analysis supported by references to Chomsky’s Language Acquisition Device
and Universal Grammar, with negation in have you never heard and the virtuous error of past tense buyed
being the items analysed most frequently.
Data handling
Some responses attempted phonological analysis to an extent and generally did not describe the glottal stop
in /wɔːʔə/, nor offer opinion on why Henry’s utterance in that particular instance might be different from
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
anything seen in the father’s utterances. Weaker responses merely suggested that Henry had not reached
his expected milestones.
There was general observation of competent turn-taking with fulfilled adjacency pairs and some cooperative
overlap at line 10 acknowledged to be due to Henry’s excitement.
Most responses included analysis of prosodic features. Weaker commentary explained that there was
different pitch in the intonation of the father’s questioning technique, whereas stronger responses explored
more fully the nature of the pitch and whether it implied whether or not a response was necessary. Prosody
was also analysed in the father’s WOW and Henry’s EXPLODE where each interlocutor used raised volume
for a specific and different purpose.
Further data selections were made to analyse Henry’s use of contraction, I’ll, conjunction and, deletion of
initial syllable in conjunction cause to separate clauses and virtuous error ive. Confident responses described
these linguistic features using an accurate range of technical terminology and developed commentary.
Overall, responses provided a careful selection of language data to evidence analysis which was at times
synthesised in an insightful manner by confident candidates.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Paper 9093/41
Language Topics
Key messages
The key skills required by Paper 4 as outlined in the syllabus are illustrated by the three assessment
objectives applicable to the paper: understanding (AO1), writing AO2) and conceptualisation (AO4).
Candidates should be aware of the demands of the assessment objectives.
Section A and Section B both have the following marks available: AO1, 10 marks; AO2, 5 marks, and AO4,
10 marks. Observation of how marks are made available according to the assessment objectives should give
clear indication as to how each response should be crafted to best effect.
Paper 4 is an opportunity for candidates to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of two key
language topics by providing a sustained, logically sequenced and cohesive response to stimulus material.
Responses should be supported by evidence from the text and relevant reference to linguistic theory.
It should be noted that in Paper 4 there is no requirement to analyse the language of the texts provided. Any
such analysis becomes irrelevant content and this material is not rewardable: evidence of such analysis was
found in the November 2021 series and this diminished the relevance and discursive qualities of some
responses.
In the November 2021 series, there was evidence that candidates had divided the examination time carefully
between the two sections, which resulted in the provision of two generally sustained essays.
General comments
In general, the stimulus material in both sections drew thoughtful responses. Short responses could only be
described as ‘limited’ according to the levels of response outlined in the mark scheme, as they were limited
by their own brevity. In some cases, elaborate plans had been produced to the detriment of the full essay.
Planning is advised to an extent; these should form brief outlines with useful pointers to be used in the full
response; at times it seemed that planning had left little time to write the final essay.
Responses should demonstrate candidates’ ability to produce two discursive, cohesive essays which
highlight understanding of the stimulus material and an application of knowledge and understanding gained
from wider reading of the topic. Focus should be maintained on the question and the context provided;
simply providing explanations of knowledge of linguistic issues, concepts, methods and approaches is not
sufficient to gain marks across all three assessment objectives. Conversely, responses which do not present
ideas and understanding gained from wider reading will offer no creditable material according to AO4.
Section A
Question 1
Understanding
Most responses to this question demonstrated a clear understanding of the linguistic issues put forward in
the article, making clear reference to points made in the text. These points included but were not limited to:
the notion that English might be seen by some as the world’s top language and perhaps the world’s favourite
lingua franca; the influence of machine translation on the way that English is used internationally; how
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
learning English might be affected if computers can now do all the hard work; the role of English in
international business, and the influence or otherwise of English in popular culture.
When discussing points from the text, some limited responses relied on knowledge of historical context
relating to the early development of the English language, which at times led to loss of focus. Weaker
responses tended to paraphrase the stimulus material without development of the ways in which English is
used internationally. On the other hand, clear or detailed responses took a series of ideas from the text and
discussed much more fully why and how, for example, machine translation might become a threat, or
perhaps the purpose and value of a lingua franca in an international scenario.
At times, discussion departed from the question and context and explored instead the more general and
wider concept of language change, relying on the strands of knowledge and understanding relevant to 9093
Paper 3, Question 1. Stronger responses maintained focus throughout on the context provided, thus
demonstrating clear, detailed or insightful understanding of English in the world.
Writing
In clear or effective responses, work was structured logically into a sequence which followed a pattern of
introduction, key points and conclusion. Sophisticated responses introduced counterarguments to points
raised, demonstrating creative thinking on the part of the candidate. In more limited responses the
introduction comprised an opening statement which was not tied to the stimulus material, nor the main points
which were going to form the basis of the body of the essay. Often these included statistics of the numbers of
speakers of English worldwide, or the number of different languages which currently exist globally. Such
knowledge, albeit commendable in part, would have been better and more relevantly placed to support
points raised later in the discussion. Weaker conclusions merely repeated points seen previously, whereas
confident conclusions confirmed strong linguistic standpoints.
Clear or effective responses maintained an appropriate register using low frequency lexis and relevant
linguistic terminology inside logically sequenced structural frameworks. Sophisticated responses
demonstrated a natural ease in their use of technical descriptors of linguistic issues, with ideas being
developed fully and with fluidity. This second consideration is important as AO2 does not only reward
accuracy of expression, therefore responses remained limited if insufficient development was provided, even
where accurate control of expression was seen.
When considering linguistic issues, some responses presented their audience with rhetorical questioning.
This approach was rarely successful as no clear answer was provided and the journalistic style detracted
from the overall register of the work. Any questions posed should always be answered to provide
development of the presented issue. At times, relevance of content was obscured by political or sociological
consideration which ran the risk of weakening the linguistic standpoint.
Conceptualisation
Overall, a clear but not detailed variety of linguistic concepts, methods and approaches was discussed.
Crystal’s notions in his English as a Global Language and Diamond’s steamroller metaphor were those most
frequently referenced, although often these could have been explored more fully. Other theoretical examples
which were relevant and clearly understood included those from McCrum, Philipson, Widdowson, Tree and
Wave models, Zero Translation theory and Modiano’s Expanding Circles.
Limited responses often introduced linguistic concepts and approaches with, ‘Some theorists believe ...’
without acknowledging the source of their wider reading. Although this went some way to opening theoretical
or conceptual discussion, lack of detailed understanding was demonstrated.
Most responses introduced Kachru’s approach, sometimes including a diagram which had unnecessarily
taken up valuable examination time. Limited responses tended to provide a full exploration of the Kachru
model whereas insightful responses detailed more succinctly how the boundaries originally identified by
Kachru might have moved since the 1980s, also providing thoughtful opinion on where such boundaries
might sit in the future, noting as stated in the article things are changing fast.
Most responses also referred to learning English to some extent, exploring the ways in which using
translation technology could mean that English lessons which are now compulsory in some countries may no
longer be part of the curriculum in the future. Development of this issue often drew upon valuable personal or
local experience.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Section B
Question 2
Understanding
Overall, responses demonstrated a clear level of understanding of the specific points made in the extract
provided. These included but were not limited to: ways in which different cultures might use language in
relation to abstract concepts such as space or time; the influence of language in relation to gender in
different cultures; construction of meaning in different languages, including metaphor, and the influence of
metaphor on thought pattern.
Limited responses selected evidence from the text to discuss Boroditsky’s findings of how language might be
perceived to lay blame, often citing one language tends to play the blame game whilst tending not to explore
whether, as in the remainder of the sentence, speakers of those languages think differently about what
happened.
Confident responses demonstrated insightful understanding of what Boroditsky had described as ingredients
of meaning. As well as citing the examples provided in the stimulus material, such as the Yaguan
expressions of time, sophisticated responses demonstrated creative thought on why intent matters in
transmission and reception of language and how variation in tenses details the temporal information our
thought processes might rely on to understand deeper and more accurate meaning.
Developed discussion included reference to examples of metaphor in languages other than English, to
support or refute Boroditsky’s statement on how we construct meaning without understanding patterns in
metaphor and language. This also led to development on the extent to which conceptual metaphor can
influence thought and intentionally or unintentionally mislead.
Writing
In general, those responses which were sustained were paragraphed into logical and fluent sequences of
ideas. Overall, control of expression was clear or effective and an appropriate register was maintained. Low
frequency lexis and technical terminology strengthened responses, and at times there was a sophisticated
level of linguistic terminology used naturally and with fluidity. This increased the register of the response and
enhanced the linguistic point of view. Lapses in register or misapplied terminology were frequently seen in
weaker responses.
Some basic or limited responses sought merely to supply paraphrase of the stimulus material without
introduction of ideas for development. It is important to note that AO2 does not only reward for clarity and
control of expression; equal weight is carried for development of the work.
At times, irrelevant material was offered, including some analysis of the language used by either the author
or by Boroditsky. Discussion of irrelevant points led to loss of focus on the question and the stimulus
material.
Most responses included quotes from the text which had been skilfully embedded. In some cases, overly
long sections had been copied into the response which had taken up valuable examination time. Candidates
should ensure that examples cited are brief and completely relevant to the discussion in hand.
Conceptualisation
Most responses made reference to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis to some extent, with some insightful
responses having extended discussion of linguistic determinism and relativism to support a careful selection
of evidence from the text. Limited responses did not always acknowledge the theoretical source, although
effective or sophisticated responses juxtaposed Whorfianism with theoretical examples which challenged
deterministic or relativistic notions, such as those from Lenneberg or Boas.
In an attempt to demonstrate wider reading, responses which went into great detail describing Whorf’s
exploration of the Hopi or Inuit lexicon tended to lose focus on the stimulus material, which had provided
ample examples of its own. Where focus on the text became lost, although it was clear that wider study had
been carried out, the discussion ran the risk of becoming irrelevant.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
In line 21 of the stimulus material, Boroditsky makes brief mention of gender, describing it as a fundamental
consideration. Although there were no examples provided by Boroditsky, a number of responses sought to
introduce the concept of gendered language supported by mainly appropriate references to genderlect
theories. In some cases, the introduction of this topic was carefully crafted as part of the overall response. In
some weaker responses, genderlect discussion formed the major part of the work with little or no reference
to other specific points raised in the stimulus material.
Overall, a wide selection of issues, concepts, methods and approaches was referenced. These included
Fodor’s LOTH, Giles’ Communication Accommodation Theory, Plato’s view of how language should be an
accurate reflection of eternal ideas, Steinberg, Pinker, Vygotsky, and Tajfel. Some limited responses made
mention of the names of theorists without demonstration of the relevance of their work or how it might have
been represented in the stimulus material. Other limited responses named theories without citing authorship.
In both of these cases, incomplete knowledge was demonstrated. However, where linguistic issues,
concepts and theoretical approaches were discussed, clear or effective referencing led to sustained and
cohesive discursive essay-writing which was at times presented as sophisticated work.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Paper 9093/42
Language Topics
Key messages
This paper is an opportunity for examination candidates to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding
of two key language topics by providing a sustained, logically sequenced and cohesive response to stimulus
material. Responses should be supported by evidence from the text and relevant reference to the
candidate’s wider linguistic study.
In Paper 4 there is no requirement to analyse the language of the texts provided. Any such analysis
becomes irrelevant content and this material is not rewardable: evidence of such analysis was found in the
November 2021 series and detracted from the appropriate discursive qualities of some responses.
Key skills required by Paper 4 are outlined in the three assessment objectives: understanding (AO1), writing
AO2) and conceptualisation (AO4). Candidates should be aware of the demands of the demands of the
assessment objectives.
Section A and Section B both have the following marks available: AO1, 10 marks; AO2, 5 marks, and AO4,
10 marks. Observation of how marks are made available according to the assessment objectives should give
clear indication as to how each response can be crafted to best effect.
In this series, there was evidence that most candidates had divided the examination time equally between
the two sections in order for them to provide as full a response as possible to each question, thus most
responses were sustained and included a variety of relevant and valid points for discussion.
General comments
Responses to both sections mainly demonstrated sustained work, particularly to Question 1. Short
responses could only be described as ‘limited’ according to the levels of response outlined in the mark
scheme, as they were limited by their brevity. At times, there was evidence that much time had been spent
planning, leaving insufficient time for writing a full response. Although planning is advised to an extent, plans
should remain brief with useful pointers to be used in the sustained final response.
The demands are to produce two discursive, cohesive essays which highlight understanding of the stimulus
material as well as knowledge gained from wider reading of the topic. Focus should be maintained on the
question and the context provided; a demonstration of knowledge gained from wider reading is not sufficient
to gain marks across all three assessment objectives. In some cases, long historical or sociological
discussions were made without reference to the stimulus material. By contrast, some responses did not
present ideas gained from wider reading and offered no creditable material relating to AO4.
Section A
Question 1
Understanding
Most responses to this question made clear reference to points made in the text, demonstrating a clear
understanding of the linguistic issues put forward in the article. These issues included how English may be
used as a lingua franca, how the Moroccan government is seeking to bring about controversial linguistic
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
change with the possibility of giving preference to English, the importance of English in the workplace,
employability for English speakers, potential cultural and/or personal identity loss and governmental linguistic
policy.
Some limited discussion relied solely on the ideas presented by the respondents in Text B. Conversely,
some candidates missed the opportunity to use points raised in Text B as springboards for development of
ideas. More confident responses interwove ideas from both texts in order to provide synthesis and cohesion
to the overall essay whilst demonstrating deeper understanding.
At times, weaker responses tended to lose focus on the causes and effects of the expansion of English in
the world. Discussion became separated from the context, exploring instead the wider concept of language
change, relying on knowledge and understanding required in 9093 Paper 3, Question 1. Stronger responses
maintained focus throughout on the context provided, thus demonstrating clear, detailed or insightful
understanding of the demands of the question.
Writing
Ideas were generally structured into a logical sequence which moved through a short introduction, key points
and short conclusion. Clear, detailed or insightful work included counterargument to, or thoughtful
development of, points raised in the stimulus material. At times, weaker responses began with a generalised
statement which bore little relevance to the main points of the body of the essay. These often included
statistics of the numbers of speakers of English worldwide, or the number of different languages which
currently exist globally, which would have been more relevantly placed to support points raised later in the
discussion. Weaker conclusions merely repeated ideas used previously, whereas confident, well-crafted
conclusions confirmed strong linguistic standpoints.
Confident responses maintained tight control of an appropriate register using low frequency lexis and
relevant linguistic terminology. Well-crafted responses provided detailed discussion of points raised in the
text, developing ideas in a sophisticated manner. AO2 does not only reward for accuracy of expression –
development of ideas is also acknowledged, therefore responses were self-limiting, however accurate they
may have been, if there was insufficient development.
Some responses had taken a writing approach which included a number of rhetorical questions; this
approach was rarely successful, as a clear answer to any issue should be provided by the response itself.
Moreover, the rhetorical questioning detracted from the overall register of the work. At times, relevance of
content was obscured by political or sociological consideration. Where this was sustained throughout the
response with little reference to the text, the linguistic standpoint was weakened.
Conceptualisation
Most responses introduced Kachru’s approach, positioning Morocco in the outermost of his concentric
circles. Some limited responses provided a full explanation of the Kachru model without further reference to
any other approaches. Furthermore, some responses had included diagrams of the Kachru model which
were unnecessary additions to already lengthy explanations. However, more confident, and at times
insightful, responses detailed more succinctly how the boundaries originally identified by Kachru in the 1980s
might change with the expansion of English through the contemporary world. In particular, detailed accounts
were provided of where Morocco might sit according to the Kachru model if English did indeed become the
national or official language of that nation. Thus, focus was maintained on the texts, rather than them
becoming supplementary to, or indeed omitted from, the theory.
Clear, but not always detailed, application of linguistic concepts, methods and approaches was generally
evident. Most responses referenced Crystal and Diamond but wider reading of McCrum, Graddol,
Widdowson, Webber and Ho, McArthur’s Wheel model and Galloway’s Channels were also used. Limited
responses often introduced linguistic concepts and approaches with the generalisation, ‘Some theorists’ or ‘A
linguist’ without acknowledging the source of their wider reading. Thus, lack of detailed knowledge was
evident.
Most responses also referred to language death to some extent, although in weaker responses this was only
in passing and remained undeveloped. Confident responses provided detailed reference to UNESCO’s
stages of language death and their consequences on local cultures and beliefs, often providing valuable
local or personal examples to develop the discussion.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
A further linguistic issue which was discussed by most candidates was that of hybridisation. Detailed
responses discussed whether or not a new Moroccan English may be developed in the future, following the
path which had led to the development of Singlish, for example. Clear, detailed or insightful responses were
developed with reference to how creation of pidgins and creoles can lead to hybridisation or eventual
standardisation.
Section B
Question 2
Understanding
Overall, responses demonstrated a clear level of understanding of the specific points made in the extract
provided. These included how false presumptions may be made when hearing accents spoken, the potential
demand for accent reduction or modification, the lack of standardization of accent, how accent might affect
employability, intelligibility, what might make a good communicator and whether there might be positive
aspects to accent.
The stimulus material offered the opportunity for discussion on the advantages or disadvantages of accent in
relation to personal and social identity as well as exploration of how change in personal and social identities
might bring about advantage. Limited responses tended to discuss the perceived unfairness of Miloshevych’s
situation. However, more confident responses demonstrated a much broader and deeper understanding of
why and how her experiences had led her to her goal, having herself sought out proactively professional
advice over a period of three years.
Although weaker responses were clear in their understanding of how her accent had affected the prospects
of Miloshevych, they tended to make little use of the views of Munro and Gross, thus did not explore the
whole of the stimulus material. Developed discussion incorporated ideas on how intelligibility is the
fundamental issue in communication and sought to argue the positive aspects in a contemporary society
where a mix of accents is heard. Thus, both sides of the question focus – personal and social identity – were
addressed.
Writing
Weaker responses tended to paraphrase the stimulus material without introduction of the candidate’s own
ideas for development. AO2 rewards for development as much as it rewards for accuracy of expression;
paraphrase or brief explanation does not constitute development of ideas and such responses will remain
limited.
At times, irrelevant material was offered, including some analysis of the language used by the writer of the
text which is not required in Paper 4. Discussion of irrelevant points led to loss of focus on the question and
the stimulus material.
Cohesive discussion was effectively provided in stronger responses. Clear or detailed responses were
paragraphed into logical and fluent sequences of ideas. Generally, control of expression was clear or
effective and an appropriate register was maintained. Low frequency lexis and technical terminology was
used in stronger responses. At times, there was a sophisticated level of linguistic terminology used which
increased the register of the response and enhanced the linguistic point of view. Lapses in register or
inaccurately applied terminology were seen in weaker responses, although most responses to Question 2
were sustained.
At times, lengthy quotes from the text were copied into weaker responses. Stronger responses skilfully
embedded succinct quotes to evidence ideas, which indicated careful crafting of writing.
Conceptualisation
In some basic or limited responses there was no reference to linguistic issues, concepts, methods or
approaches when answering Question 2. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis was frequently referenced to some
extent. There was some extended discussion of linguistic determinism and relativism, some of which was
made relevant to the issue of language and identity. Limited responses did not always acknowledge the
theoretical source; this incomplete referencing, which indicated a lack of depth of knowledge, occurred
frequently.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Detailed responses referenced Ardener and Ardener’s Muted Group and Tajfel’s Social Identity theories,
both of which were directly relevant to the topic of marginalisation of accented speech. Many responses also
used Giles’ Communication Accommodation Theory to support ideas on how individuals might become
integrated into various discourse communities or wider society. Other relevant studies which were referenced
were those from Cheshire and Edwards, Trudgill, Labov and Milroy, often in detail and fully appropriately.
Some responses sought to widen discussion to gendered language, attempting to apply genderlect theories
to the topic of personal and social identity. Whilst this was plausible to an extent, focus was lost in limited
responses where genderlect discussion was overdeveloped in relation to that of the concept of accent.
Furthermore, there was some introduction of Bernstein’s notion of restricted and elaborated code, which was
not always fully relevant, nor fully understood.
Overall, responses evidenced a broad range of wider reading, much of which was relevant to the topic of
personal and social identify.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Paper 9093/43
Language Topics
Key messages
The key skills required by Paper 4 as outlined in the syllabus are illustrated by the three assessment
objectives applicable to the paper: understanding (AO1), writing AO2) and conceptualisation (AO4).
Candidates should be aware of the demands of the assessment objectives.
Section A and Section B both have the following marks available: AO1, 10 marks; AO2, 5 marks, and AO4,
10 marks. Observation of how marks are made available according to the assessment objectives should give
clear indication as to how each response should be crafted to best effect.
Paper 4 is an opportunity for candidates to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of two key
language topics by providing a sustained, logically sequenced and cohesive response to stimulus material.
Responses should be supported by evidence from the text and relevant reference to linguistic theory.
It should be noted that in Paper 4 there is no requirement to analyse the language of the texts provided. Any
such analysis becomes irrelevant content and this material is not rewardable: evidence of such analysis was
found in the November 2021 series and this diminished the relevance and discursive qualities of some
responses.
In the November 2021 series, there was evidence that candidates had divided the examination time carefully
between the two sections, which resulted in the provision of two generally sustained essays.
General comments
In general, the stimulus material in both sections drew thoughtful responses. Short responses could only be
described as ‘limited’ according to the levels of response outlined in the mark scheme, as they were limited
by their own brevity. In some cases, elaborate plans had been produced to the detriment of the full essay.
Planning is advised to an extent; these should form brief outlines with useful pointers to be used in the full
response; at times it seemed that planning had left little time to write the final essay.
Responses should demonstrate candidates’ ability to produce two discursive, cohesive essays which
highlight understanding of the stimulus material and an application of knowledge and understanding gained
from wider reading of the topic. Focus should be maintained on the question and the context provided;
simply providing explanations of knowledge of linguistic issues, concepts, methods and approaches is not
sufficient to gain marks across all three assessment objectives. Conversely, responses which do not present
ideas and understanding gained from wider reading will offer no creditable material according to AO4.
Section A
Question 1
Understanding
Most responses to this question demonstrated a clear understanding of the linguistic issues put forward in
the article, making clear reference to points made in the text. These points included but were not limited to:
the notion that English might be seen by some as the world’s top language and perhaps the world’s favourite
lingua franca; the influence of machine translation on the way that English is used internationally; how
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
learning English might be affected if computers can now do all the hard work; the role of English in
international business, and the influence or otherwise of English in popular culture.
When discussing points from the text, some limited responses relied on knowledge of historical context
relating to the early development of the English language, which at times led to loss of focus. Weaker
responses tended to paraphrase the stimulus material without development of the ways in which English is
used internationally. On the other hand, clear or detailed responses took a series of ideas from the text and
discussed much more fully why and how, for example, machine translation might become a threat, or
perhaps the purpose and value of a lingua franca in an international scenario.
At times, discussion departed from the question and context and explored instead the more general and
wider concept of language change, relying on the strands of knowledge and understanding relevant to 9093
Paper 3, Question 1. Stronger responses maintained focus throughout on the context provided, thus
demonstrating clear, detailed or insightful understanding of English in the world.
Writing
In clear or effective responses, work was structured logically into a sequence which followed a pattern of
introduction, key points and conclusion. Sophisticated responses introduced counterarguments to points
raised, demonstrating creative thinking on the part of the candidate. In more limited responses the
introduction comprised an opening statement which was not tied to the stimulus material, nor the main points
which were going to form the basis of the body of the essay. Often these included statistics of the numbers of
speakers of English worldwide, or the number of different languages which currently exist globally. Such
knowledge, albeit commendable in part, would have been better and more relevantly placed to support
points raised later in the discussion. Weaker conclusions merely repeated points seen previously, whereas
confident conclusions confirmed strong linguistic standpoints.
Clear or effective responses maintained an appropriate register using low frequency lexis and relevant
linguistic terminology inside logically sequenced structural frameworks. Sophisticated responses
demonstrated a natural ease in their use of technical descriptors of linguistic issues, with ideas being
developed fully and with fluidity. This second consideration is important as AO2 does not only reward
accuracy of expression, therefore responses remained limited if insufficient development was provided, even
where accurate control of expression was seen.
When considering linguistic issues, some responses presented their audience with rhetorical questioning.
This approach was rarely successful as no clear answer was provided and the journalistic style detracted
from the overall register of the work. Any questions posed should always be answered to provide
development of the presented issue. At times, relevance of content was obscured by political or sociological
consideration which ran the risk of weakening the linguistic standpoint.
Conceptualisation
Overall, a clear but not detailed variety of linguistic concepts, methods and approaches was discussed.
Crystal’s notions in his English as a Global Language and Diamond’s steamroller metaphor were those most
frequently referenced, although often these could have been explored more fully. Other theoretical examples
which were relevant and clearly understood included those from McCrum, Philipson, Widdowson, Tree and
Wave models, Zero Translation theory and Modiano’s Expanding Circles.
Limited responses often introduced linguistic concepts and approaches with, ‘Some theorists believe ...’
without acknowledging the source of their wider reading. Although this went some way to opening theoretical
or conceptual discussion, lack of detailed understanding was demonstrated.
Most responses introduced Kachru’s approach, sometimes including a diagram which had unnecessarily
taken up valuable examination time. Limited responses tended to provide a full exploration of the Kachru
model whereas insightful responses detailed more succinctly how the boundaries originally identified by
Kachru might have moved since the 1980s, also providing thoughtful opinion on where such boundaries
might sit in the future, noting as stated in the article things are changing fast.
Most responses also referred to learning English to some extent, exploring the ways in which using
translation technology could mean that English lessons which are now compulsory in some countries may no
longer be part of the curriculum in the future. Development of this issue often drew upon valuable personal or
local experience.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Section B
Question 2
Understanding
Overall, responses demonstrated a clear level of understanding of the specific points made in the extract
provided. These included but were not limited to: ways in which different cultures might use language in
relation to abstract concepts such as space or time; the influence of language in relation to gender in
different cultures; construction of meaning in different languages, including metaphor, and the influence of
metaphor on thought pattern.
Limited responses selected evidence from the text to discuss Boroditsky’s findings of how language might be
perceived to lay blame, often citing one language tends to play the blame game whilst tending not to explore
whether, as in the remainder of the sentence, speakers of those languages think differently about what
happened.
Confident responses demonstrated insightful understanding of what Boroditsky had described as ingredients
of meaning. As well as citing the examples provided in the stimulus material, such as the Yaguan
expressions of time, sophisticated responses demonstrated creative thought on why intent matters in
transmission and reception of language and how variation in tenses details the temporal information our
thought processes might rely on to understand deeper and more accurate meaning.
Developed discussion included reference to examples of metaphor in languages other than English, to
support or refute Boroditsky’s statement on how we construct meaning without understanding patterns in
metaphor and language. This also led to development on the extent to which conceptual metaphor can
influence thought and intentionally or unintentionally mislead.
Writing
In general, those responses which were sustained were paragraphed into logical and fluent sequences of
ideas. Overall, control of expression was clear or effective and an appropriate register was maintained. Low
frequency lexis and technical terminology strengthened responses, and at times there was a sophisticated
level of linguistic terminology used naturally and with fluidity. This increased the register of the response and
enhanced the linguistic point of view. Lapses in register or misapplied terminology were frequently seen in
weaker responses.
Some basic or limited responses sought merely to supply paraphrase of the stimulus material without
introduction of ideas for development. It is important to note that AO2 does not only reward for clarity and
control of expression; equal weight is carried for development of the work.
At times, irrelevant material was offered, including some analysis of the language used by either the author
or by Boroditsky. Discussion of irrelevant points led to loss of focus on the question and the stimulus
material.
Most responses included quotes from the text which had been skilfully embedded. In some cases, overly
long sections had been copied into the response which had taken up valuable examination time. Candidates
should ensure that examples cited are brief and completely relevant to the discussion in hand.
Conceptualisation
Most responses made reference to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis to some extent, with some insightful
responses having extended discussion of linguistic determinism and relativism to support a careful selection
of evidence from the text. Limited responses did not always acknowledge the theoretical source, although
effective or sophisticated responses juxtaposed Whorfianism with theoretical examples which challenged
deterministic or relativistic notions, such as those from Lenneberg or Boas.
In an attempt to demonstrate wider reading, responses which went into great detail describing Whorf’s
exploration of the Hopi or Inuit lexicon tended to lose focus on the stimulus material, which had provided
ample examples of its own. Where focus on the text became lost, although it was clear that wider study had
been carried out, the discussion ran the risk of becoming irrelevant.
© 2021
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9093 English Language November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
In line 21 of the stimulus material, Boroditsky makes brief mention of gender, describing it as a fundamental
consideration. Although there were no examples provided by Boroditsky, a number of responses sought to
introduce the concept of gendered language supported by mainly appropriate references to genderlect
theories. In some cases, the introduction of this topic was carefully crafted as part of the overall response. In
some weaker responses, genderlect discussion formed the major part of the work with little or no reference
to other specific points raised in the stimulus material.
Overall, a wide selection of issues, concepts, methods and approaches was referenced. These included
Fodor’s LOTH, Giles’ Communication Accommodation Theory, Plato’s view of how language should be an
accurate reflection of eternal ideas, Steinberg, Pinker, Vygotsky, and Tajfel. Some limited responses made
mention of the names of theorists without demonstration of the relevance of their work or how it might have
been represented in the stimulus material. Other limited responses named theories without citing authorship.
In both of these cases, incomplete knowledge was demonstrated. However, where linguistic issues,
concepts and theoretical approaches were discussed, clear or effective referencing led to sustained and
cohesive discursive essay-writing which was at times presented as sophisticated work.
© 2021