Galicia PAU Spanish Language and Literature II common mistakes
Galicia PAU Spanish Language and Literature II · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In the text-commentary section, the candidate summarises the passage paragraph by paragraph instead of stating the theme and then justifying it with textual evidence, so the answer never formulates a thesis about what the text says and how it says it.
School habit of 'resumen + opinión' carries over; candidates confuse comprehension with paraphrase and fear committing to an interpretation, so they retell content to feel safe.
What to do instead
Before writing, draft a one-sentence thesis naming theme plus the author's attitude, then build each paragraph around a claim backed by a short quotation and a comment on its effect. Practise with a fixed frame: tema → estructura → rasgos lingüísticos → conclusión valorativa, and check that no paragraph merely retells events.
When describing textual typology, the candidate labels a text 'argumentative' or 'expository' from its topic alone (e.g. any text about literature is called essayistic) without examining markers such as modality, connectors, verb tenses, person and discourse organisation.
Typology is studied as a list of definitions to memorise, not as a set of linguistic indicators to look for; candidates match topic to genre instead of analysing surface features.
What to do instead
Build a checklist of formal indicators (predominance of 1st/3rd person, evaluative adjectives, causal vs. chronological connectors, imperative or epistemic modality, tense chains) and apply it before naming the type. Justify the label with at least three concrete features quoted from the text, and note hybridity where features conflict.
The candidate identifies cohesive devices by name (anaphora, cataphora, ellipsis) but does not explain what each one refers to or what function it performs in that specific text, producing a decontextualised list of terms.
Textbooks present cohesion as a taxonomy to be recited; under time pressure candidates dump terminology rather than trace referents through the passage.
What to do instead
For every device cited, write the antecedent and the referent explicitly (e.g. 'el pronombre «aquello» remite a la guerra civil mencionada en la línea 3') and state the effect (avoiding repetition, maintaining topic, creating ambiguity). Limit yourself to four or five well-explained examples rather than a long unanalysed inventory.
In the literary-history question, the candidate produces a loose chronological narrative of the Generation of '98 and the avant-garde without naming representative authors, works, dates or defining aesthetic features, so the answer could apply to almost any period.
Revision is done by reading summaries rather than by memorising anchor facts; candidates rely on general impressions of 'regenerationism' and 'modernism' without concrete referents.
What to do instead
Memorise a compact anchor table per movement: dates, three authors, one work each, two defining formal features and the historical trigger. In the exam, open with a definitional sentence, then develop with named examples and close by linking the movement to the author studied in the course.
The candidate treats 'Modernismo' and the Generation of '98' as a single phenomenon, or dates the Generation of '98 to the disaster of 1898 alone, ignoring the shared fin-de-siècle context and the internal diversity of both labels.
Course summaries often present the two as a simple contrast (esthetics vs. social concern), and candidates reproduce the dichotomy without nuance or dates.
What to do instead
Prepare a short comparison covering chronology, attitude to language, themes (interiority and exoticism vs. national regeneration), and authors who straddle both (e.g. Valle-Inclán, Unamuno). Practise writing two paragraphs that acknowledge overlap and then differentiate, citing specific works.
When analysing a prescribed work, the candidate recounts the plot and gives a personal opinion ('me pareció muy interesante') instead of analysing narrative voice, structure, characterisation, time, space and style with textual support.
The reading is done as plot consumption; candidates have no analytical vocabulary for narrative technique and substitute emotional response for analysis.
What to do instead
For each set work, prepare a one-page analytical sheet: narrator type and reliability, narrative time (order, duration, frequency), structure, principal symbols, and three quotable passages. In the exam, answer with technique-plus-evidence-plus-effect sentences and reserve evaluation for a short closing paragraph.
The candidate names rhetorical figures without explaining their function, and mislabels them (calling any repetition an anaphora, any comparison a metaphor, or confusing metonymy with synecdoche).
Figures are learned as a list of Greek names with one-line definitions; candidates match by keyword rather than by analysing the semantic operation involved.
What to do instead
Learn each figure through its mechanism (substitution, repetition, transposition, omission) with two original examples you construct yourself. In answers, always add the effect on meaning or rhythm, and when in doubt describe the operation in plain Spanish rather than risk a wrong label.
In the grammar and normative-use section, the candidate corrects or justifies forms by ear, missing accentuation rules on diacritic and hiatus cases, errors of verbal regime and prepositional use, and agreement or dequeísmo/queísmo problems.
Normative rules are known passively from reading; candidates never systematise the accentuation and regime rules, and trust intuition where the standard differs from colloquial usage.
What to do instead
Drill the specific rule categories separately: diacritic accents (aún/aun, más/mas, qué/que), hiatus versus diphthong accentuation, regime lists (influir en, consistir en, advertir de), and dequeísmo/queísmo pairs. For each correction, state the rule applied, not just the corrected form.
In syntactic analysis, the candidate labels a whole clause 'subordinada sustantiva' or 'adjetiva' without identifying its function (sujeto, CD, CN, complemento predicativo) or distinguishing subordination from coordination and juxtaposition.
Analysis is practised by naming bracket types rather than by testing substitution and function; candidates skip the transformation tests that reveal structure.
What to do instead
Apply explicit tests: substitute the clause with 'eso' or 'lo' to test nominal function, with 'así' for adverbial, and replace the relative with an adjective to test adjectival. Always state the function of each constituent and the type of nexus before naming the sentence type.
In the written-production task, the candidate writes a text with a vague title, no explicit thesis, paragraphs organised by association, and connectors limited to 'además' and 'pero', so the argument never progresses and the required length is met by padding.
Candidates plan minimally under time pressure and reproduce conversational style; they lack a repertoire of discourse markers and of argumentative structures.
What to do instead
Spend five minutes on an outline: thesis, three arguments with an example each, concession and rebuttal, conclusion. Learn a bank of connectors by function (adición, contraste, causa, consecuencia, ejemplificación, reformulación, cierre) and use at least one from each category. Leave time to check register, agreement and punctuation.