Andalusia PAU Spanish Language & Literature II common mistakes
Andalusia PAU Spanish Language & Literature II · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In the text commentary, the candidate merely summarises what the text says paragraph by paragraph ("first the author says... then he says...") instead of identifying the theme, the communicative intention and the textual structure (analysing, arguing, narrating, describing).
The candidate has practised reading comprehension more than commentary technique, and believes that demonstrating that they have understood the text is the same as commenting on it. Under time pressure, summarising feels safer than committing to an interpretation.
What to do instead
Before writing, draw up a three-line plan: central theme in one sentence, communicative intention (what the author wants the reader to think or feel), and textual structure with line references. In the commentary, every paragraph must add analysis, not content: instead of "the author says that the sea is calm", write "the sea functions as a symbol of inner peace, which supports the argumentative intention of the final paragraph".
In the linguistic reflection question, the candidate identifies the syntactic function of a segment by asking "what does it answer?" or by its meaning, without verifying the grammatical tests (agreement, pronominalisation, passivisation, substitution by an adverb).
Intuitive analysis works in simple sentences and fails in complex ones; the candidate has not automated the distributional tests and trusts intuition, which confuses, for example, the indirect object with a circumstantial complement of beneficiary or the predicative complement with an adverbial complement.
What to do instead
Apply explicit tests in writing before answering: substitute the segment with lo/la/los/las (direct object), le/les (indirect object), así/de este modo (circumstantial or adverbial), and check agreement with the subject (predicative). For the subject, check agreement with the verb and ask whether it can be omitted without changing the meaning. Practise with sentences that contain traps: passive reflexives, impersonal se, periphrases and relative clauses.
In the literature question, the candidate answers with a generic author biography or with the label of the movement ("Generation of '27", "Realism") instead of locating the fragment in the trajectory of the movement, justifying the adscription with formal features of the text itself.
The candidate has memorised manual summaries chronologically but not linked each movement to recognisable stylistic features; when facing an unfamiliar fragment, they resort to the author's name and dates, which do not earn marks for textual analysis.
What to do instead
For each movement, memorise three or four verifiable formal features (for example, in Modernism: sensory synaesthesia, exotic lexicon, Alexandrine verse or free verse with marked rhythm; in the Generation of '27: popular lyric combined with avant-garde image, metrical experimentation). Always quote the fragment to justify the adscription: "the presence of X and Y places it in...".
In the syntax question, the candidate labels a subordinate clause only as "subordinate" without specifying whether it is substantive, relative (with or without antecedent) or adverbial, and without indicating its function within the main clause.
The candidate confuses the level of analysis (the clause as a whole versus the nexus) and does not distinguish relative que from conjunction que, so they stop at the first label that comes to mind.
What to do instead
Use a two-step protocol: (1) replace the clause with eso (substantive), with an adjective or a noun phrase (relative) or with an adverb (adverbial); (2) state the function of the whole clause in the main clause (subject, direct object, CN, CC...). Practise discriminating que with antecedent (relative) from que without antecedent (substantive or conjunction) in sentences with verbs of perception and in cleft sentences.
In the written expression section, the candidate writes a text with an introduction, development and conclusion but without a thesis or a clear communicative purpose, piling up ideas connected only by "also", "besides" and "in addition".
The candidate treats the exercise as an improvised essay and does not plan; the result complies with the word count but fails the coherence criterion, which is what is most heavily weighted in the rubric.
What to do instead
Spend five minutes on a scheme: thesis, two or three arguments with an example each, and a conclusion that returns to the thesis. Use explicit connectors with logical value (however, therefore, in the first place, in short) and check that each paragraph develops a single idea announced in its first sentence.
The candidate mixes registers in the written expression: colloquialisms, filler words ("things", "a lot of", "get"), abbreviations or emoticons alongside an attempted formal register, or, conversely, an artificially pompous style with misused cultisms.
The candidate reproduces the oral register of their immediate environment or imitates an academic style they do not master, without verifying the appropriateness of the lexicon to the addressee and the purpose of the text.
What to do instead
Before writing, define the addressee and the register (an opinion article admits a personal voice but not slang; an academic text requires an impersonal tone). Keep a list of lexical substitutions ("a lot of" > "numerous", "get" > "obtain/achieve") and reread the text aloud to detect colloquial turns.
In the lexicon and semantics question, the candidate defines words by synonym without distinguishing denotation from connotation, or without identifying the semantic relationship asked for (polysemy, homonymy, hyperonymy, antonymy, lexical field).
The candidate answers with a loose definition instead of operating with the precise metalinguistic terminology, and confuses polysemy (one word with several meanings) with homonymy (different words that coincide in form).
What to do instead
Memorise the operational criterion: polysemy if the meanings share an etymological link and are recorded in the same entry; homonymy if they come from different etymons or have different grammatical categories. When asked for a semantic relationship, state it explicitly and justify it with a test (substitution, inclusion, opposition of meaning).
When identifying the genre and subgenre of the literary fragment, the candidate answers "poem" or "novel" without specifying lyric, narrative or dramatic mode, and without distinguishing, where appropriate, the subgenre (sonnet, romance, existential novel, testimonial novel, theatre of the absurd).
The candidate confuses the material form of the text (verse or prose) with the literary mode, and has not practised recognising formal indicators such as the stanza, the narrative voice or the dramatic conflict.
What to do instead
Apply a decision tree: is there a narrative voice that recounts events? (narrative) is there an expressive voice that does not narrate? (lyric) do the characters speak directly without a narrator? (dramatic). Then identify the subgenre from formal traits: stanza and rhyme scheme in the sonnet, octosyllables with assonance in the romance, chapter structure and point of view in the novel.
The candidate leaves questions blank or answers them with a single word when they do not know the answer, even though the exam allows partial credit for reasoning.
Fear of being wrong or poor time management leads to leaving spaces empty; the candidate does not know that a justified partial answer usually scores more than nothing.
What to do instead
Set a maximum time per question and always write something reasoned: state what you do know, apply the test you remember and make the hypothesis explicit ("if it is a relative clause, the function would be..."). At the end, review the blank questions before the ones already answered.
In the commentary, the candidate repeatedly paraphrases the fragment's lines or copies literal quotations without commenting on them, using them as filler to reach the required length.
The candidate has learned that quoting earns marks, but not that the quotation must be followed by interpretation; without commentary, the quotation is mere reproduction and does not demonstrate analysis.
What to do instead
For each quotation, apply the quotation-comment pattern: quote a short fragment (maximum one line), identify the rhetorical or grammatical procedure, and explain its effect on meaning or on the reader. Limit yourself to two or three well-commented quotations per section and use the rest of the space for analysis.