Írásbeli értékelő verseny - Archívum

Feladat teljesítése, üzenet-közvetítés, sikeressége

[Task Achievement]

5 (10)

Itt a vizsgázó teljesítménye a 6 és a 4 pont közé esik (az 5-ös pontszámhoz nem tartozik leírás), megállapítható, hogy ez nem egy sikeres információközlő, ajánló levél. A fókusz helyenként eltűnik, nem derül ki, hogy az író mit is akar közölni és kivel (pl. „People can find courses.” mondat a szöveg közepén). Az irreleváns tartalomra példa a felesleges utalás a „furcsa emberekre”, hiszen ez esetleges, és nincs köze a kurzus szervezéséhez.

Szövegkohézió és koherencia

[Coherence & Cohesion]

2 (5)

A szöveg egyáltalán nem áll össze egy egésszé, az író nem használ kötőszavakat, szövegkohéziós eszközöket. A levél nyolc bekezdésből áll, amit sem a tartalom, sem a hosszúság nem indokol.

Nyelvhelyesség és szókincs

[Range and Accuracy]

2 (5)

A 2-es pontszámot nem a hibák nagy száma vagy súlyossága indokolja elsősorban, hanem a kifejezés nyelvezetének minimalizmusa. Az azonos mondatszerkezetek, az álkezdő szinthez közeli szókincs használata, kulcsszavak többszöri ismétlése rendkívül monotonná teszi a szöveget.

Stílus és műfaj

[Appropriacy]

3 (5)

A levél stílusa, a formalitás szintje konzisztensen megfelel az elvárásoknak, de nem emelkedik az átlagos szint fölé. A megszólítás és elköszönés illeszkedik a levél stílusához.

4

 (5) 

This is a coherent text which deserves a MARK 4 . In every component it shows better qualities than the short descriptors in the line for mark 3. Yet in one of the ingredients it does not reach the top score. The following points outline the complex reasons for awarding this text a 4:

• The text as a whole is clear, the overall structure shows sufficient logic, the information provided is organised well (5).
• There is cohesion and coherence within the individual paragraphs (5).
• The main reason for not awarding it a perfect score is the lack of discourse markers, linking devices (3) and referencing devices (3). These cohesive tools could have established even stronger and more explicit links between sentences, sections, and particularly between paragraphs. The importance of this ingredient of cohesion and coherence building is confirmed in the Common European Framework (CEF) for B2 level writing: „Can use a variety of linking words to mark clearly the relationships between ideas.” (see Dialang scales, CEF p. 241)

6

(10)

Our scoring indicates that the text meets the descriptors for the „task achieved, some gaps” mark (6 points). Sticking to the instructions, our candidate has produced a letter in which most positive features of the course are highlighted, and the less outstanding ones (hard beds, average entertainment) have been dealt with tactfully in contrast (view). We are giving more detailed reasons for the mark 6 awarded in the following points:

• The overall positive effect in terms of purposefulness and goals is there, the letter does achieve its purpose, plenty of well-formulated pieces of information are provided, the writer’s intention is clearly specified. (6)
• Some conscious selection of content would have made the letter even more focused: e.g. the unconnected and slightly irrelevant references to strange people and to cleanliness seem to hang in the air. (6)
• As for organising the chosen content, this letter is less successful. On the one hand, the ideas that belong together are kept together. On the other hand, similarly to the 1st text in the competition, hardly any linking devices are used in order to create cohesive chunks of text within the whole. The body of the text should have been divided into at least 2 separate paragraphs. This is the feature (which we could also evaluate more specifically in the criteria for Cohesion and Coherence) that weakens the overall effect and stops the marker from awarding the text a higher score even for Task achievement. (6)

5

(5)

On the surface the extensive grammatical inaccuracy creates a very poor overall impression, which impedes the reader’s swift comprehension of the text. However, if we look at the task description, we must admit that most of the required information is presented, and is wrapped in an appropriate format. We are giving more detailed reasons for the mark 5 awarded in the following points:

• It is an appropriately formal letter with a functionally well-formulated opening and a rather surprising (“...the best you can do, vote...”), but again mostly appropriate ending, and with some relevant explanation in between (6).
• This letter could be heavily penalised for language mistakes (e.g. “...we think about them, who does not local people) and for problematic choice of vocabulary (e.g. “disadvantage vote”), several of which lead to comprehension problems, to a lack of clarity (4-5).
• The writer did include most of the information the task rubric required. Yet there is clearly some misunderstanding shown between the reference to the availability of parks in the task, and the writer’s rather unclear points to parking issues. This confusion ultimately weakens the overall message, since the open-air venue options get no mention at all (5).
• The information is presented in a haphazard manner, not organised very logically (e.g. reference to the type and price of accommodation separated in two different paragraphs), thus also working against clarity and overall positive effect on the reader (5).
  

9

(10)

From a functional and communicational viewpoint, this letter is perfect. The one reason why we haven’t awarded it 10 points is that it follows the required content, but shows little originality. However, we can be sure that it will yield a very positive effect, and that Tree Hill has an excellent chance to host the Festival – as long as it depends on this letter only !

5

(5)

We criticised the lack of discourse markers in all the previous texts of the competition. In this letter, however, the writer achieves cohesion and coherence through the conscious and effective use of linking devices (e.g. “First and foremost”, “Another advantage...”, “As for...”). What impresses the reader most is the variety of the devices themselves, as well as the range of functions they express.

4

(5)

The 4 points reflect the so-called “can do” (i.e. we should focus on what the candidate achieves and not on their mistakes only!) nature of the Euro exam. No doubt the writer has made plenty of mistakes to deserve 3 points. Yet, there can be no doubt that the text shows plenty of positive features which show the writer’s wide range of appropriately used lexis, for example (e.g. “enchanting”). Apart from that, we can spot a choice of sentence structures we also appreciate. These positives do compensate for the mistakes.

5

(5)

The letter meets all the requirements of the top score in this category. It is consistently formal, polite and uses perfectly appropriate expressions to strengthen this quality (“e.g. “I am writing in response...”, “I would like to give you...”).

Feladat teljesítése, üzenet-közvetítés, sikeressége

[Task Achievement]

7 (10)

A feladatleírás szerint a film review célközönsége egy diákfolyóirat, és ennek a szöveg jó színvonalon megfelel. A szerző egyértelműen diáktársaihoz szól, világos utalásokat tesz a filmre és legalább a rendezőre, a végén pedig egy rövid ajánlást is tesz. Vagyis a pozitív hatás várható, az érdeklődő olvasók ennyi alapján eldönthetik, hogy megnézik-e a filmet vagy nem. A túlzott tartalommesélés csapdáját is elkerüli a vizsgázó, mégis sikerül egy hangulatot adni a filmről. Ugyanakkor a szöveg kevés eredetiséget mutat, és a feladat alapján pontosabban hivatkozásokat vártunk a sokkoló részletekkel kapcsolatban.

Szövegkohézió és koherencia

[Coherence & Cohesion]

4 (5)

A szöveg koherens (a tartalom felépítése logikus) és szövegkohézió tekintetében is jónak mondható. Az utalások pontosak, a mondatok közti kapcsolódás egyértelműen látható. Különösen a leginkább összetett második bekezdés mutatja, hogy a szerző tudatosan építi fel a szöveget. Az ok, amiért nem adtunk maximális pontot, a szövegkohéziós eszközök hiánya, amelyek közül néhány alkalmazása még egyértelműbb és erősebb kohéziót eredményezett volna. A két rövid első bekezdés is hatékonyabb lenne egyetlen paragrafusban összevonva.

Nyelvhelyesség és szókincs

[Range and Accuracy]

3 (5)

A pontokból is látható, hogy a szöveg ebben a kategóriában a legkevésbé sikeres. Nincsenek benne értelemzavaró hibák, a kommunikáció hatékonyságát egyik nyelvtani hiba (e.g. ’to tell about it all of you’) vagy helytelen szóhasználat (e.g. ’consequence’) sem zavarja meg igazán. Ugyanakkor színes, magabiztos nyelvi fordulatok kompenzálják a hibákat (e.g. ’Full of love, desires, tears, and such terrible and shocking things like war.’).

Stílus és műfaj

[Appropriacy]

4 (5)

A szöveg stílusa viszonylag egységes, bár a szerző időnként átvált az itt teljesen megfelelő informális stílusról egy kicsit formálisabbra. Ettől függetlenül érezhető, hogy a vizsgázó tisztában van a diáktársaknak szóló cikk stílusbeli elvárásaival, aminek fő jellemzője, hogy végig egyértelműen a diákokhoz szól, nekik akarja elmondani a véleményét.

2

(5)

We have got to be pretty critical with this text, which as a whole sounds more like a narrative than a review. In terms of COHESION and COHERENCE, we can safely claim that in virtually all the points it does not reach the level of mark 3 above.

 
Admittedly, the text lacks an adequate overall structure, and cannot be considered mostly clear either. On top of all that, plenty of confusion can be observed as a result of the writer jumping from one topic to another without creating logical links. A key sentence simply makes no sense (e.g. ’Then they made a rehearsal, and the film looked great, so...’), thus it cannot function as the structural introduction to the second paragraph.

 
As for linking devices, the ones used mostly refer to time (’then’ or ’soon’), which in a review should appear in the presentation of the plot and not in the narration of events, as is this non-review. Another common linking word, ’finally’ is also misused and misplaced, it cannot meet its widely-accepted function of introducing the final element of a list. The same ought to be said about ’as a result’. We can find a typical B2 mistake in line 6: the use of ’what’ instead of ’which’ to refer back to the whole statement of the preceding clause (it is as much a referencing and linking mistake as a grammar one).

All these points justify the 2 points awarded.

4

(10)

The task was to write a film review for a student magazine. However, the text reads like a narrative, focuses too much (about two-thirds of the whole) on the content of the film, while the writer offers very little data and other information about the film and its creators. If it is a really effective film about a sporting event, the true achievement should be how the filmmakers were able to catch the memorable moments, and it is this element the film review is expected to deal with. Since this review contains more irrelevant than relevant information, it is very unlikely that it achieves a successful outcome. On top of that, the text looks and is structured like an informal letter as opposed to an article written to a student magazine.

3

(5)

In terms of organisation, the text can be considered adequate, mostly clear with some confusion, using a limited range of cohesive devices. To be specific, the first 4 sections (they cannot be called paragraphs) represent a logical build-up. The next section, however, is an unrelated sentence about the penalty shoot out (which chronologically preceded the celebrations clearly!) which is then followed by another loosely connected one with the wrong and unclear use of the reference word „it” twice. This way, the second half of the text easily falls apart. Fortunately, the overall clarity is more or less kept by the writer. Most linking words (except ’so’ in paragraph 1) are used appropriately and enhance meaning.

3

(5)

The writer shows evidence of reading about and/or listening to soccer texts in English, the specific vocabulary used is simply perfect. This clear positive feature compensates for the somewhat strange grammar mistakes (e.g. the Hunglish appearance of ‘that’ twice before a relative pronoun). Unlike the range shown in lexis, the sentence patterns are slightly simple yet clumsy, and certain parts of the text stumble, as a result (e.g. “…the victories, what had to do…).

2

(5)

To meet the requirements for a mark 3, the reader would be expected to show an awareness of register. It is the lack of this awareness, and the presence of a number of totally inappropriate chunks (e.g. „Cannavaro was singing,…” or „Have a nice day,”). The style shows confusion in terms of audience awareness as well: at times the text is appropriately informal in tone, yet there are only 2 contracted forms, though they would have been consistently appropriate in this genre, to this particular audience.

7

(10)

The task was to write an article to the local newspaper. Not a professional article written by a professional journalist, rather a warning, a reminder to the locals by a resident of the town.

The text has its own easily comprehensible logic, which makes it clear. Its messages touch the right buttons, they are almost sure to achieve a successful outcome. Most relevant details are followed, and they are presented in a visibly logical structure:

1. writer not satisfied, everyone needs a place to go to
2. youngsters need places where they may enjoy themselves
3. elderly citizens deserve their own facilties too

In terms of dicourse building, this structure shows a good example of a general point raised at the beginning, and certain specific aspects of it are elaborated on afterwards.

However, the article is far from being perfect. For example, it lacks an introduction, since the so-called thesis statement (The city of ... can’t offer...) sounds a bit too direct and less appropriate as a lead-in in an article like this. Something more atmospheric could have worked better, a rhetorical question for instance. The ending is similarly simplified, although functionally it serves the required purpose effectively.

Contentwise, the reference to the theatre is acceptable, but the sentence about the need for better advertising of the institution looks a bit out of place.

9

(10)

In such an article, you are supposed to express your viewpoints about a local issue, drawing attention to it with effective arguments and dynamic language. This is exactly what this candidate has achieved. We can safely say that all the messages are clearly presented, and the whole text has a really positive effect on the target reader. It seems quite unlikely that, having read this article, the reader should have no reaction to it. There are two minor reasons why the text does not deserve the full mark for this category: it does not only exceed the required length significantly, but there seems to be some irrelevant, and unjustifiable content (e.g. ’The food was OK, typical spa food.’) in it which does not belong strictly to the main argument.

4

(5)

In terms of organisation, the text can be considered both cohesive and coherent. Interestingly, it is not mainly the use of a wide range of linking devices that creates these positive effects, although the few that are used are appropriate. What is more impressive is the skilful application of reference words (e.g. ‘this’), lexical tools (‘dirt outside, dirt inside’). The only reason what questions the full mark is the way the 4th paragraph hangs on its own, it links neither to the preceding, nor to the subsequent paragraph.

4

(5)

The writer handles his/her proficiency quite confidently, which manifests itself primarily in the relatively wide selection of sentence types, making the whole narrative quite colourful. By varying positive and negative statements with rhetorical questions, the candidate shows a masterful range in syntax. The few mistakes (e.g. grammar ones: ‘too’ instead of ‘either’; lexical ones: ‘...did unlikely...’) are hardly noticeable among the strong and effectively used sentences, clauses.

5

(5)

The criteria for a 5 require that the style should be appropriate to the genre, and a range of stylistic devices should be applied to show the appropriate register. For example, the use of rhetorical questions may not be too appropriate in several other text types, but they fit this genre perfectly, they are eye-catching and do the job of highlighting particular issues. The level of informality, accompanied by the slightly chatty style also matches the text type.