These notes to testers are intended merely as guidelines to help taging. They are non offered as an thorough and fixed set of responses or attacks to which all replies must stiffly adhere. Good thoughts or angles non offered here should be acknowledged and rewarded as appropriate. Similarly. replies which do non include all the thoughts or attacks suggested here should be rewarded suitably.
Campaigners are required to compare a missive from John Steinbeck to his eldest boy Thom with an “ advice” amusing strip by Ken Cursoe. both of which explore the virtuousnesss ( or non ) of being in love. An equal to good analysis will:
• note the commonalties of the two texts. such as Thom and Luke both seeking advice about love. the “ expert’s” sentiment about love. male/female differentiations. etc • note some of the differences between the two texts. such as male parent / Tiny Sepuku. earnestness / wit. missive / advice column/cartoon. etc
• remark on the different text types. observing some features of each. ( For illustration. the missive observes the conventions of the signifier and responds to a missive on a personal degree and addresses the issues it raises in a clear and logical manner. The sketch. sitting as an advice column. opens with a brief missive of two inquiries answered by Tiny in a “ tongue-in-cheek” manner through seven sketchs of the “ super powers” that love gives to either the male or female in the relationship )
• remark on the differences of context as deduced from the times and state of affairss in which the texts were generated and from issues and mentions made within the texts themselves. such as the sketchs of the sketch. the deductions of the gestures and linguistic communication of the sketch characters. every bit good as the relationships revealed in the missive and the attitudes expressed by Steinbeck
• remark on the differences of audience and intent as deduced from the two text types. A good to first-class analysis may besides:• see further the differences in the attitudes to “ love”• see more closely the intents of the authors as viewed through their pick of text types. sing closely the differences between earnestness and temper • offer a more in-depth analysis of both the missive and the sketch. looking closely at the stylistic characteristics and demoing some acquaintance with footings appropriate to each• offer a more careful consideration of audience and intent. for illustration. the original receiver of the missive and. now. the wider audience interested in the life and Hagiographas of John Steinbeck. and. for the sketch. those who follow the amusing strip ( and compose in ) or the general populace who are amused by the cartoonist’s intervention of the topic.
Campaigners are required to compare the verse form Eyepiece by Judith Beveridge with a message from the Yahoo forum Microscope – Microscopy as a avocation or profession. which present. severally. nonliteral and actual positions of the universe seen through a microscope. An equal to good analysis will:
• note the commonalties of the two texts: the screening of the universe through a microscope. the designation of what is being looked at in each instance• remark on the two text types researching some features of each ( the blend of personal and scientific remarks in the message. every bit good as the nature of observation. both general and specific. the usage of scientific linguistic communication. the planetary nature of the “ group. ” etc as opposed to the more refined qualities of the verse form: stanzas. lines. enjambement. simile. extended metaphor. initial rhyme. etc )
• remark on the “ view of the world” that is offered by these authors and how differentiations between their intents. contexts and audience shape their usage of linguistic communication. manner and technique • offer a acknowledgment of the differentiation between actual and nonliteral. A good to first-class analysis may besides:
• offer a more in-depth analysis of both text types. demoing how pick of text type influences both the construction and manner of the content• offer a careful consideration of the universe position that is presented in each text: looking at the differentiations between depicting an eventide as though it were a vision seen through a microscope compared with the world of looking at H2O through a microscope and the impact ( such as “ fascinating” . “ shocked and horrified” ) on the perceiver• see more closely the two speech production voices ( the scientist and the character of the verse form ) . how they are characterized and to what consequence
• offer a cogent comparing of the two text types that offers a clear apprehension of intent. context. content and audience.
The paper "English a language and literature essay" was contributed to our database by a real student. You can use this work as a reference for your own writing or as a starting point for your research. You must properly cite any portion of this sample before using it.
If this work is your intellectual property and you no longer would like it to appear in our database, please request its deletion.Ask for Removal
Create a Citation on Essay
PaperPrompt. (2022) 'English a language and literature essay'. 31 January.
PaperPrompt. (2022, January 31). English a language and literature essay. Retrieved from https://paperprompt.com/english-a-language-and-literature-essay/
PaperPrompt. 2022. "English a language and literature essay." January 31, 2022. https://paperprompt.com/english-a-language-and-literature-essay/.
1. PaperPrompt. "English a language and literature essay." January 31, 2022. https://paperprompt.com/english-a-language-and-literature-essay/.
PaperPrompt. "English a language and literature essay." January 31, 2022. https://paperprompt.com/english-a-language-and-literature-essay/.
"English a language and literature essay." PaperPrompt, 31 Jan. 2022, paperprompt.com/english-a-language-and-literature-essay/.
Get in Touch with Us
Do you have more ideas on how to improve English a language and literature essay? Please share them with us by writing at the [email protected]