Discourse compare Jun 22
03) Text A is an extract from an online American article in which lawyer Bryan Garner gives
his view on standard English. It is therefore an opinion article. It is written by a lawyer and
law is a career in which traditionally, standard English is required, therefore this article will
explore a prescriptivist view. It is written towards aspiring lawyers who have no schematic
knowledge, hence its purpose is to inform readers. Text B is also an online journalistic article
which explores prescriptivist views as he engages in a debate with descriptivist Oliver Kaam.
Therefore although his writing is directed towards him, it can also be interpreted as targeting
descriptivists with pre-existing knowledge of linguistics and trying to convince them why
standard English is superior. Therefore the two texts have different purposes and audiences
and therefore conventions.
Both authors attempt to represent their ideas as credible in a similar way. For example, both
texts begin with adjacency pairs in which the writers answer an interrogative sentence. In
text A, the author responds to the interrogative 'should children be taught standard English
Grammar' with the parenthetical phrase 'of course' within the simple declarative sentence
'the traditional view, of course, is yes'. The use of the parenthetical phrase 'of course' is used
to convince the reader that their opinion is correct which is particularly effective given the
purpose at persuading the reader. This is intensified through the use of the copular verb 'is'
which emphasises an inextricable dogmatic approach to the issue and a link between the
subject 'The traditional view' and the affirmative 'yes'. In the same way, in text B, Heffer
answers the interrogative 'is there such a thing as correct English' with the simple declarative
sentence 'there is such a thing as correct English'. The copular verb 'is' is also used,
however the response is less formal given the colloquial noun 'thing' and considering this
response is targeted at a 'panellist descriptivist'. In addition, following this statement, the
writer begins the next 3 sentences with the 3rd person singular pronoun 'it' instead of a
specific subject. This use of anaphoric referencing is ineffective in my opinion since it
creates a lack of cohesion, and you would expect that a credible prescriptivist would have a
more formal, clear writing style. Therefore, the self-representation of the writer in text A is
more effective since it fulfils its generic convention of persuading the reader through
presenting personal ideas.
Throughout the texts, the author of text A seems more credible. For example, although a
prescriptivist, in text A, the writer refers to other approaches as well as his own. For
example, the descriptivist 'Hodson' is referred to in the independent clause 'Hodson claimed
there is little purpose in learning Standard English Grammar'. However, the text is structured
that Lowth, prescriptivist, comes after this which effectively discredits her ideas. For
example, in the verb phrase 'teach ourselves to express ourselves' is modified with the noun
phrase 'with propriety' which explores why a prescriptivist approach could be favourable.
However, in contrast since text B is a debate, the author wants to just explore prescriptivist
approaches, however, the use of the pre-modifying adjective 'laissez-faire' of french origin is
particularly ineffective in my opinion since this deviates from that of pure standard English.
We can infer from pragmatic features that the author uses the premodifying adjective in the
dependent clause 'if you were to take a laissez-faire approach', to paint using non traditional
language as having consequences, I believe this lexical choice is ineffective since it
03) Text A is an extract from an online American article in which lawyer Bryan Garner gives
his view on standard English. It is therefore an opinion article. It is written by a lawyer and
law is a career in which traditionally, standard English is required, therefore this article will
explore a prescriptivist view. It is written towards aspiring lawyers who have no schematic
knowledge, hence its purpose is to inform readers. Text B is also an online journalistic article
which explores prescriptivist views as he engages in a debate with descriptivist Oliver Kaam.
Therefore although his writing is directed towards him, it can also be interpreted as targeting
descriptivists with pre-existing knowledge of linguistics and trying to convince them why
standard English is superior. Therefore the two texts have different purposes and audiences
and therefore conventions.
Both authors attempt to represent their ideas as credible in a similar way. For example, both
texts begin with adjacency pairs in which the writers answer an interrogative sentence. In
text A, the author responds to the interrogative 'should children be taught standard English
Grammar' with the parenthetical phrase 'of course' within the simple declarative sentence
'the traditional view, of course, is yes'. The use of the parenthetical phrase 'of course' is used
to convince the reader that their opinion is correct which is particularly effective given the
purpose at persuading the reader. This is intensified through the use of the copular verb 'is'
which emphasises an inextricable dogmatic approach to the issue and a link between the
subject 'The traditional view' and the affirmative 'yes'. In the same way, in text B, Heffer
answers the interrogative 'is there such a thing as correct English' with the simple declarative
sentence 'there is such a thing as correct English'. The copular verb 'is' is also used,
however the response is less formal given the colloquial noun 'thing' and considering this
response is targeted at a 'panellist descriptivist'. In addition, following this statement, the
writer begins the next 3 sentences with the 3rd person singular pronoun 'it' instead of a
specific subject. This use of anaphoric referencing is ineffective in my opinion since it
creates a lack of cohesion, and you would expect that a credible prescriptivist would have a
more formal, clear writing style. Therefore, the self-representation of the writer in text A is
more effective since it fulfils its generic convention of persuading the reader through
presenting personal ideas.
Throughout the texts, the author of text A seems more credible. For example, although a
prescriptivist, in text A, the writer refers to other approaches as well as his own. For
example, the descriptivist 'Hodson' is referred to in the independent clause 'Hodson claimed
there is little purpose in learning Standard English Grammar'. However, the text is structured
that Lowth, prescriptivist, comes after this which effectively discredits her ideas. For
example, in the verb phrase 'teach ourselves to express ourselves' is modified with the noun
phrase 'with propriety' which explores why a prescriptivist approach could be favourable.
However, in contrast since text B is a debate, the author wants to just explore prescriptivist
approaches, however, the use of the pre-modifying adjective 'laissez-faire' of french origin is
particularly ineffective in my opinion since this deviates from that of pure standard English.
We can infer from pragmatic features that the author uses the premodifying adjective in the
dependent clause 'if you were to take a laissez-faire approach', to paint using non traditional
language as having consequences, I believe this lexical choice is ineffective since it
