Sprachliche Mittel: vier markierte Sätze und ein Inkonsequenzproblem
Nils writes the Sprachliche Mittel block of his Abitur Klausur: 45 minutes of short tasks, plus a separate language mark for his own text worth roughly a quarter of the total. Four of his sentences come back marked:
(a) "Since three years the government tries to ban smartphones in schools." (b) "The author suggests to introduce a stricter age limit." (c) "If the government would act now, the problem would not be so serious." (d) "A lot of people think that the platforms are not doing enough, and it's obviously a big problem."
The task booklet asks him to (i) correct the sentences and name the rule, and (ii) rewrite (d) in a register appropriate for an analysis. His teacher has told the class that British and American spelling are both accepted - but Nils writes "organisation" in line 2 and "organization" in line 9 of his own text, and "colour" on one page and "color" on the next.
1. Correct (a), (b) and (c), name the rule behind each, and say which errors a marker will treat as serious and why.
Read the worked answer
(a) → "For three years the government has been trying to ban smartphones in schools." Two rules: since takes a point in time, for takes a duration; and a duration reaching into the present requires the present perfect (progressive), not the simple present. The error is German interference (seit drei Jahren + present).
(b) → "The author suggests introducing a stricter age limit" or "... suggests that a stricter age limit should be introduced." Suggest takes a gerund or a that-clause, never an infinitive with to. Contrast advise/allow/ask somebody to do something, where an object is present. Again interference from vorschlagen, etwas zu tun.
(c) → "If the government acted now, the problem would not be so serious" (or were to act). Rule: no would in the if-clause of a type-2 conditional; would belongs in the main clause.
Which matters most: (b) and (c) are clear grammatical errors that recur across a text and a marker will register as systematic - they pull down the language band. (a) is grammar and lexis at once. All three are high-frequency, which is precisely why they are penalised; a rare slip in an ambitious structure is treated far more leniently.
2. What should Nils do about the mixed British and American spelling - and what is the actual risk here?
Read the worked answer
Rule first: both varieties are acceptable in the Abitur, but consistency within one text is expected. The risk is not the choice of variety; it is that inconsistency reads as carelessness and draws the marker's attention to the language band, where they are already looking for systematic weakness.
Decision: pick one variety and hold it. British English is the safer default in German schools, but either is defensible. Consistency applies to whole families of words, not just the ones he noticed: -ise/-ize (organise/organize), -our/-or (colour/color, behaviour/behavior), -re/-er (centre/center), doubled consonants (travelled/traveled), -ce/-se (defence/defense), practise (verb) vs practice (noun).
Practical check: the two minutes at the end are better spent scanning for exactly this than re-reading content. A quick pass for -ize, -or and -er endings catches most of it.
Proportion: this is a minor deduction, not a catastrophe. Nils should not spend ten minutes on it while sentence (b)-type errors - which recur every paragraph - go uncorrected.
3. Rewrite (d) in an appropriate analytical register and explain each change you make.
Read the worked answer
Rewrite: "Many observers argue that the platforms are failing to meet their responsibilities, and the author presents this as the central problem."
Changes and reasons:
- A lot of people → Many observers. Register: vague quantifiers belong to conversation; an analysis names the group whose view is being reported.
- think that → argue that. Precision: an argument can be cited and evaluated, an opinion cannot.
- are not doing enough → are failing to meet their responsibilities. Nominalisation gives the claim an object that can be examined.
- and it's obviously a big problem → and the author presents this as the central problem. Removes the contraction, removes obviously (which asserts instead of arguing - an analysis weighs, it does not insist), and attributes the judgement to the author rather than smuggling it in as fact.
- big → central. Evaluative adjectives should be chosen, not defaulted to.
Caution: nominalisation improves register but can be overdone. The aim is distance and precision, not sentences so heavy that the examiner has to decode them.