Moderating a punctuation and cohesion deduction
A 62-word paragraph from a Year-12 Gagauz practice paper is being marked for syntax, punctuation and cohesion. The candidate opens with a single sentence of 31 words that chains four clauses with the conjunction 'da' and contains no comma. The second sentence begins with 'Ama' with no punctuation before it. In the third sentence the pronoun 'o' is used twice, once for a poet and once for his poem. The fourth sentence repeats 'güzel' three times. The fifth sentence has no finite verb. The marking scheme allots 6 points: 2 for punctuation, 2 for sentence structure, 2 for cohesion. Two markers disagree: one wants to deduct in all three areas, the other argues the 'da' chain is a stylistic choice typical of spoken Gagauz narrative and should cost nothing. A moderation decision is needed before the scripts go to the second examiner.
1. Classify the five features as normative errors, style choices or genuine ambiguity, and say which of the six points each one touches.
Read the worked answer
- 31-word clause chain with 'da', no comma. Grammatical, and the coordinating 'da' is normal in Gagauz narrative. But the sentence-structure criterion measures control of complex syntax, and four paratactic clauses with no subordination show limited control. Cost: 1 of the 2 structure points. Not a punctuation error as such.
- 'Ama' with no preceding comma. Check the prescribed school norm: on the standard rule a comma precedes the adversative conjunction. This is a normative error. Cost: punctuation.
- Two referents for 'o'. Not punctuation and not syntax: it is a reference-chain failure. Cost: cohesion.
- 'güzel' three times. Lexical repetition. This scheme has no lexis criterion, so it should be noted in the comment but not deducted; deducting it under cohesion would double-count a stylistic weakness.
- Sentence with no finite verb. A fragment. If it is not a deliberate rhetorical device signalled by the surrounding text, it is a syntax error.
Discipline point: each feature is charged to one criterion only.
2. Marker 1 wants deductions in all three areas; Marker 2 says the 'da' chain costs nothing. Resolve the disagreement and give a total.
Read the worked answer
Both markers are half right. Marker 1 is right that the sentence is weak, but wrong to charge it to punctuation: nothing in the norm forbids a comma-free 'da' chain, and the conjunction is correctly written as a separate word rather than fused with the preceding item. Marker 2 is right that the construction is not an error, but wrong that it therefore costs nothing: the criterion is control of sentence structure, and a 31-word paratactic chain is evidence about control regardless of correctness.
Disposition: punctuation 1/2 (the missing comma before 'Ama'); sentence structure 1/2 (the chain, not the fragment alone, plus the verbless sentence); cohesion 1/2 (ambiguous 'o'; the repetition is recorded but not charged). Total 3/6.
Guard against double jeopardy: the same string of problems must not be deducted once as 'long sentence' and again as 'poor cohesion'. The moderation note should state which textual feature was charged to which criterion, so the second examiner can audit rather than re-mark.
3. Propose a minimal repair in no more than two editorial moves, and say whether returning a corrected version or returning the script with marked questions serves the assessed skill better.
Read the worked answer
Two moves: (1) split the opening sentence at the second 'da', producing two finite clauses, and insert a comma before 'Ama'; (2) replace the second 'o' with a noun phrase naming the poem, leaving the first 'o' for the poet. The 'güzel' repetition and the verbless sentence can be left, since neither is charged.
Which is better pedagogically? Returning marked questions, not a corrected text. The assessed skills are editing and cohesion control, and a corrected version supplies the answer, so the candidate practises reading a model rather than locating a fault. A marked script with two questions ('which word does the second o point to?', 'where could this sentence end?') forces the same operations the scheme rewards.
Compromise if time is short: return the corrected version plus the two questions, and require the candidate to explain why each change was made. That keeps the diagnosis visible and turns the correction into a second task rather than a gift.