ACJC ELL 2010: Promos

Paper 1 Section A Answers

CONTEXT

A B

Written  article from the BBC website
Writer & his aims:
 Tim Harford, an acclaimed economist/journalist; to
provide information about some applications of game theory.
Audience:
Spoken  conversation between Tim Harford and
Andy.
Participants in the conversation (i.e. each other’s
audience), and their aims:
 Tim the economist, an expert in his field, is trying to
teach Andy how to use game theory to get a date.

 General, especially since Harford is applying game theory  Andy is apparently going along with Tim’s advice
to something as universal as love – i.e. not specialist and instructions.
economics (not in an economics journal but the BBC
website, which has a v wide audience).

SPOKEN TEXT FEATURES OF B

Linguistic features exclusive to spoken texts Contextual features

where derivable

(i) Interactive features

• Turn-taking between T and A, resulting in adjacency pairs A using back-

channelling to
• Back-channelling – ‘okay’ (A3), ‘sounds pretty good’ (A5), ‘uh huh’ (A7), ‘I see’ respond politely to T
(A28) even though he’s not
• Overlap – A ol T (4-5) actually being asked
to do so.
• Interruption and completing others’ utterances – A interrupts T etc (‘and then =’
‘= I get it’, 24-25) A overlaps &
• Politeness strategies interrupts T, probably
– claims of common opinions/attitudes – ‘sounds pretty good’ (A5) not because he’s
– circuitous way of asking someone to do something – ‘why don’t we being rude but
because he’s eager to
watch…see what you think’ (T18)
respond / show he’s
paying attention.
(ii) Non-fluency features

• Pauses
• Fillers – ‘um’ (T15, A16), ‘er’ (T19)
• Repetition
– by the SAME speaker: ‘you’re gonna (.) you’re gonna’ (T6), ‘if (.) if’ (T10-11),
‘you never (.) never can tell’ (A16), ‘why don’t we watch (.) why don’t we watch’
(T18), ‘she (.) she’ (T26), ‘to see (.) to see’ (T26), ‘you (.) you’ (T29)
• False starts – ‘I have to say (.) well I kind of as I say…’ (A16), ‘you invite (.) you
tried to persuade…’ (T29)
• Unfinished utterances / hanging sentences – ‘…I thought something might
happen but’ (A16-17)
• Ellipsis – see Formality

(iii) Non-verbal features

• Stress – ‘then’ (T24)

• Rising intonation (interrogative) – ‘…um surprised / ‘ (T15), ‘so / (2) what did you
see / did it work /’ (T20).
• Falling intonation (end of declarative) – (T12, 18, 26)

(iv) Other syntactic and semantic features

• Hedging / vague language – ‘well I kind of as I say you never…’ (A16)

• Discourse markers – ‘well’ (T18), ‘so’ (T20), ‘I mean’ (A21)
1
 INTERPERSONAL MEANING
CONTACT
Personal pronouns
The writer uses mostly 2p general pronouns (10, 12, 24,
25, 26). The ones in 24-26 could be interpreted as 2p
plural pronouns and hence be interpreted by a reader
as 2p singular pronouns, addressing him individually,
via synthetic personalisation.
 Necessarily lower contact because Harford’s
readers constitute a mass audience. However, he
could be seen as trying to ESTABLISH A LITTLE
CONTACT with the readers, perhaps because the
article is about the application of game theory to
more personal issues.
 However, the level of contact is far lower than that
in B. Main concern is to explain, in the 3p, how game
theory can be used, the circumstances that call for it,
etc.
POWER
Mood & modality
High degree of authority expressed by the use of:
• many bare declaratives to express opinions / make
assertions (1, 2, etc)
• the imperative mood to instruct readers as to what
to think in a particular situation (‘…do not let him tell
you…’ 25-26)
(Expository interrogative, 1 – doesn’t count)
Certainty / assertiveness reduced by
• A few modal auxiliaries of probability – ‘can’ (6, 9,
22 – medium probability); ‘could’ (15, low); ‘might’
(21, low)
NOTE
If the writer isn’t the subject of verbs of thinking &
perception, those verbs do NOT contribute to lower
certainty on his part (eg the writer is 100% certain that
Van Neumann believed something).
‘Can/could’ in 4 and 8 don’t count because they’re used
in other people’s Experiences – ‘Van Neumann believed
that the theory could…’ & ‘Real enthusiasts think game
theory can…’
Personal pronouns
Both T & A use the 1p singular pronoun to place
themselves, as individuals, in the text / refer to
themselves as individuals (T22, 30; A13, 16, 21, 25, 28).
T uses the 2p singular pronoun to address A directly
(T1, 4, etc etc).
T uses the 1p plural pronoun, the inclusive ‘we’, to
place A in the same group as himself, i.e. they’re to watch
the video together (T18).
NB: Ignore the 1p & 2p pronouns in quotes (8-11, 23-24)
 There is a high degree of contact between the two
speakers, simply because this is a face to face
conversation.
BTW: A never addresses T directly, and contact is actually
fairly low for a spoken interaction because T & A are not
friends or even acquaintances.
Mood & modality
Tim
T regulates A’s behaviour with strong instructions /
directives via the following linguistic devices –
• The imperative mood (‘think of it…guarantee’ 11-12)
• Declaratives with semi-modal of medium to high
obligation ‘be going to’ (‘you’re gonna…’ 6, 8) or in
the simple present tense (‘you say…’ 8)
• The interrogative mood used as a directive (‘why
don’t we watch…’ 18)
– and by eliciting verbal behaviour using:
• The interrogative mood (‘un surprised’ 15, ‘what did
you see / did it work /’ 20)
T also expresses opinions / makes assertions
using –
• Mostly bare declaratives (1-2, 3, 22-23, etc)
– with his certainty / assertiveness reduced only a very
little by
• Modal and semi-modal auxiliaries of high
probability: ‘will’ (18), ‘be going to’ (24, 26), ‘would’
(30)
Andy
Uses only the declarative mood, mostly to respond
briefly to T. Certainty reduced quite a lot by
• Modals of probability: ‘will’ (high, 13), ‘might’ (low,
2
 17)
• Verbs of thinking & perception: ‘sounds’ (5), ‘I
thought’ (16), ’I mean’ (21)
• Hedging / vague language – ‘well I kind of as I say
you never…’ (A16)

 Harford cannot be 100% certain about whether
game theory is the best way of analysing certain
situations, or about what people really do and think
about love and marriage (hence the modals in 6, 9,
etc).
 However, his generally high level of authority
comes from his superior knowledge of the subject of
game theory.
Turn taking
T & A have almost the same number of turns, but T’s
turns are obviously far longer than A’s.
A interrupts & overlaps, but only through eagerness to
concur with T.
Only T initiates topics (game theory 1, the signal 4, etc)
Only T allocates turns (‘think of it as a money-back
guarantee’ 11-12, interrogatives 15 & 20).
 T has more power than A in every way, being the
expert to A’s layman, and the person giving advice as
to what A should do to get a date.

GENERAL STUFF

COMPLEXITY

While B has quite a lot of subordinate clauses (e.g. two in 1-2), it has fewer than A.
B has more instances of conjunction (1, 4, 8, 9, 10, etc etc) than A (16, 17, 22).
A has a few marked themes (14, 15, 22, 24) while B has none at all.

 This is because A is a planned written text, whereas B has speakers that are speaking relatively
spontaneously and therefore less likely to utter highly complex sentences.
 Tim is arguably not as spontaneous as Andy, because he’s the expert and knows the subject well – hence
the surprisingly large number of subordinate clauses in the parts spoken by him.

ACTIVE & PASSIVE VOICE

A has some instances of the passive voice to do with the development & use of game theory (‘was developed’, 2;
‘[be] used’, 4, 5, 6, 8)
 Former object ‘game theory’ shifted to subject position by passivisation because it’s one of the main topics
of the text. Focus on what it can be used for, not on who uses it.

B is entirely in the active voice. Tim (who does most of the speaking) uses the active voice to focus mainly on
various individuals (himself, Andy, the girl) and what they have done or should do.

GRAD / NON-GRAD A’s & ADV’s; N’s & N COLLOCATIONS PRE-MOD N’s

Both texts have a combination of gradable adjectives (& adverbs), non-gradable adjectives and nouns / noun
collocations pre-modifying Ns. However, B has fewer non-gradable adjectives and nouns / noun collocations pre-
mod Ns than gradable adjectives.

Gradable A’s & ADVs Gradable A’s & ADVs

• versatile (6) • best (4)
• important (9, 23) • good (5, 14)
• serious (11) • favourite (6)
• importantly (11) • confident (9)
• long (15) • surprised (15)
• expensive (19) • stilted, obviously (21)
• strong (19) • quickly (30)
• valuable (24)
• shaky (24)  Subjective descriptions / evaluations of various
 Subjective descriptions / evaluations of how useful aspects of the situation, especially concerning
game theory is, and the various situations in which it Andy’s feelings, thoughts and actions.

3
can be used.
Non-gradable A’s
Non-gradable A’s • two (4, 23)
• three (1) • third (10)
• Second (3) • money-back (11-12)
• Cold [War] (4) • first (29)
• one (7)
• other (8)
• real (8)
• another (15)
• financial (20, 25)
• modern (21)
• separate (22) N’s & N collocations pre-modifying N’s
• second (23, 24) • game [theory] (1)
N’s & N collocations pre-modifying N’s • ? West [End] (4, 23)
• game [theory] (1, 2, etc etc) • body [language] (21, 23)
• World [War] (3)  B is specific only with regard to a few details of the
instructions Tim gives Andy, eg ‘the third date’ (10).
• world champion poker [players] (5)
Otherwise, B is much less technical than A, because
• love [lives] (9-10) B focuses on the practical application of game theory
• engagement [ring(s)] (13, 18, 19, 21) in a real-life situation, in which Andy must know
• escape [route] (24) exactly what to do rather than the background,
• bachelor [flat] (25) theory, etc of game theory.
 A’s aim is more technical than B’s – focuses on
some very specific concepts and issues to do with
the application of game theory to human behaviour.

IDEATIONAL MEANING
(controversial but acceptable eg’s marked with ?)

DOMINATED BY MENTAL PROCESSES DOMINATED BY MENTAL PROCESSES

Mental processes and process verbs Mental processes and process verbs

Economists think they understand (1) sounds pretty good (5)

Game theory was developed,,,by…von Neumann… (3-
4)
Von Neumann believed…theory could be used… (4)
has…been used by…poker players (5)
[game theory] can be used / using / can use (6, 8, 9,
22)
Real enthusiasts think… (8)
? persuade someone… (10 – could be verbal)
work out… (11)
are / is serious… (10-12)
they could be trusted… (14)
Modern lovers might think… (21)
size up their partners (22)
wants to [hang on to his…flat] (25)
Game theory tells you he is up to something (26)
I hope you’d want to [go on a date] (8)
I feel confident…you’ve got to know me (9)
you will like me (10)
you don’t like me…see the show with somebody else (11)
think of it as a money-back guarantee (11-12)
I’ll think of it like that (13)
surprised / (15)
you never (.) never can tell (16)
I thought [something might happen] (16-17)
why don’t we watch…we’ll see what you think (18)
what did you see / (20)
she was going to like you and get to know you (24)
I get it (25)
I see (28)
? you tried to persuade her… (29 – could be verbal)

 Used to describe mental events involving two  As in A, used to describe mental events involving two
main sets of Experiencers: kinds of Experiencers:

(i) the academics who came up with, and use, (i) Tim and Andy planning and observing the use of
game theory game theory to get Andy a date (‘think of it as a money-
back guarantee’, ‘why don’t we watch…’ etc)

(ii) lovers, and what they think / feel about their (ii) people involved in romantic pursuits, and their
partners / situations. thoughts and emotions.

Relational processes and process verbs Relational processes and process verbs

4
the idea of engagement ring as guarantee is a thing of
the past (21)
selling the second home is an important signal (23)
that second home is an escape route… (24)
your relationship is shaky (24)
it is merely a financial investment (25-26)

 Used to attribute VALUES to certain aspects of  insignificant / no particular pattern

a romantic relationship – hence describing what
Tokens like the idea of ring as guarantee, a second
home, etc signify.

Material processes and process verbs Material processes and process verbs

giving engagement rings (13) give her the tickets (8)

kept it [i.e. the ring]… (18) go on a couple of dates (9)
for the man to stick around… (19) go to the show with you (10)
move in together… (23) go to [see the show] (11)
we’ll go on a date (23)
take you on the first date (29)

 Used to describe the physical events/actions  Used to describe the physical events/actions in the
performed by the main Agents, i.e. people involved dating process, in which the main Agents are the man
in romantic relationships. (eg Andy) and woman interacting with each other.

Verbal processes and process verbs Verbal processes and process verbs

you say “these tickets…” (8)

“…you’ll invite me…” (10)
I asked you to… (22)
she was going to invite you… (26)
? offer a guarantee…gave her (.) a bribe (27)
you invite… (29)
? you tried to persuade her (29 – could be mental)

 insignificant / no particular pattern  Describes verbal behaviour in which the Sayers are
either T giving instructions/advice to A, or people
(especially A) involved in the dating process.

TEXTUAL MEANING

1. Grammatical cohesion

Reference Reference

2p singular pronouns ‘you’ used by T to refer

exophorically to Andy from beginning to end (1, 2, 4, 6, 8,
18, 20, etc etc).

NB: MANY 2PP’S IN THE QUOTE IN 8-11 REFER TO THE

‘FAVOURITE LADY’, NOT TO ANDY.

2p singular pronouns ‘you/yours’ (8-11) & 3p feminine

pronouns ‘she/her’ (8, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29) used by T to
refer endophorically to the girl that A favours.

 insignificant / no particular pattern  The use of 2p and 3p singular pronouns to achieve

cohesion reflects the fact that the conversation is, in
the process of attempting to get them together, very
much focused on A and the girl he’s trying to date.

Ellipsis Ellipsis

• okay (7, 19)

• sounds pretty good (5)

5
 • yup (13)
• good luck (14)
• no date…surprised / (15)
• I mean…a bit stilted obviously (21)
 No (see Degrees of Formality) • no (.) it’s not (.) nothing to do with the body
language (22)

 Characteristic of unplanned spoken texts (see

Degrees of Formality)

Conjunction Conjunction
See Complexity. See Complexity.

2. Lexical cohesion

Direct repetition Direct repetition

• game theory (2, 6, 8, 9, 22, 26) • signal (1, 4, 22, 23X2, 30 )

Bolstered by Reference (‘it’ 5,6) & Specific-General • date(s) (9, 10, 15, 24, 29)
Reference (‘the theory’ 4), which in themselves do not • show (4, 10, 11, 23, 26)
contribute to cohesion. • tickets (4, 8X2, 23)

 For obvious reasons.

 Repetition of the expressions that refer to the key
Repetition around the 3rd paragraph: items used in the exercise and its ultimate aim – i.e.
• engagement ring(s) / engagement / ring (s) (13, to get A a date, with the tickets to the show as a
18, 19, 21) signal.

 Emphasis in that particular section on the

significance of the engagement ring as a signal /
guarantee according to game theory.

Semantic fields Semantic fields

SF associated with romantic relationships
• love (1, 9), date/dating (8, 10), love lives (9-10),
serious about… (11-12), engagement ring(s) /
engagement / ring (s) (13, 18, 19, 21), fiancé
(14), marriage (15), partner(s) (22, 25), couple
(22), commitment (23), relationship (24).
(Actually rather tenuous) SF associated with romance
& specifically dating
• trustworthiness (2), your favourite lady (6),
date(s) (9, 10, 15, 24, 29), like (10, 11, 24), invite
(10, 26), playboy (30)

 Text mainly concerned with the application of

game theory to people’s love lives.

SF associated with the law in the 3rd paragraph

• courts (16, 17), sue, “breach of promise” (16),

financial compensation (20)

 That section is about how a signal like an

engagement ring takes the place of legal procedures.

 Both A & B contain SFs to do with romance, but  Both A & B contain SFs to do with romance, but
A’s is much more wide-ranging, being concerned with B’s is much narrower, being concerned with the one
the applications of game theory to a variety of particular individual Andy and his character /
romantic situations. situation / date.

Synonyms & near-synonyms Synonyms & near-synonyms

6
serious about… (11-12) – stick around (19) – commitment
(23)
 Commitment being a key issue in romantic
relationships, and a problem that Harford claims that
game theory can solve.
Specific-general reference
 Insignificant
Antonyms
 Insignificant
Meronyms
 Insignificant
Hyponyms
 Insignificant
Ordered series
 None
3. Theme / rheme / thematic progression
Thematic progression patterns
 Insignificant
SEMANTICS
Relatively neutral / unemotive
Expressions with positive connotations
• versatile (6), signal confidence (19), serious
about… (11-12), trusted (14), security (17), stick
around (19), commitment (23), valuable (24)
Expressions with negative connotations
• trouble (14), broke off (14), without prospects…
(15), “breach of promise” (16), broken off (18-
19), shaky (24), up to something (26)
 Positive & negative connotations are not linked to
the writer’s attitudes. Instead, they are mainly used to
describe the positive and negative aspects of
romantic relationships that game theory can be
applied to (with the obvious exception of ‘versatile’,
which describes game theory). Hence the text is
relatively neutral in tone.
 Insignificant
Specific-general reference
 Insignificant
Antonyms
trustworthiness (2) vs playboy (30)
 The entire exercise is largely aimed at getting A to
turn over a new leaf and hence be able to get a female
to trust him enough to date him.
Meronyms
 Insignificant
Hyponyms
 Insignificant
Ordered series
 None
Thematic progression patterns
Theme reiteration
• You (referring to Andy) in sentence-initial position
(6, 8, 26, 29, 30)
 Theme reiteration is the simplest pattern and more
likely to be used in unplanned spoken texts to
emphasise some topic (here, Andy).
Relatively emotive
Expressions with positive connotations &
denotations
• trustworthiness (2), best [show] (4), [sounds
pretty] good (5), favourite [lady] (6), confident
(9), like (10, etc), guarantee (12, etc), good luck
(14)
Expressions with negative connotations &
denotations
• oh dear (15), stilted (21), bribe (27), moving too
quickly (29-30), playboy (30)
 Like A, positive & negative connotations and
denotations are used to describe the positive and
negative aspects of romantic relationships
(‘trustworthiness’, ‘favourite lady’ etc vs ‘playboy’).
 But the negative connotations & denotations are
7

No implied meaning
 Insignificant – text is about a fairly technical /
academic subject, i.e. game theory, and hence has to
be as clear and straightforward as possible,
especially as it’s aimed at a mass audience (not a
specialist one).
Relatively formal
Very few non-standard or colloquial expressions –
‘stick around’ (19), ‘shaky’ (23), ‘up to something’ (25)
No ellipsis
A few long, complex &/or technical expressions –
? economist(s) (1, 4), game theory (2, etc),
mathematician (3), deterrence (5), incentive (19), financial
compensation (20).
 Relatively formal, because the topic is a fairly
technical / academic one. But not as formal as a
genuinely academic text, because aimed at a mass
audience.
also used by A & especially T to assess A’s
performance. This reflects their negative views of the
outcome of the exercise.
No implied / inferred meaning
 Insignificant. T has to explain how to apply game
theory and the entire exercise very clearly and
unambiguously to A if he is to get his point across.
Informal
Some non-standard & colloquial expressions – okay
(3), sounds…good (5), gonna (6 etc), pick your favourite
lady (6), yup (13), oh dear (15), playboy (30), etc.
Some ellipsis (see Grammatical Cohesion for eg’s).
Very few long, complex &/or technical expressions –
very ordinary words used except for ‘game theory’ at the
start, and maybe ‘trustworthiness’ & ‘guarantee’ (12, 27,
etc).
 Although T is instructing A on how to apply game
theory, the fact that it is a real-life, practical situation
being discussed in an unplanned spoken
conversation means that it would definitely be less
formal than A.