Compare the ways in which language is used for effect in the two texts. Give some examples and analyse the effects.
The two sources that I am going to compare are Source 3 and Source 2. Source 2 is an article aimed for anyone who is interested in swimming or even people who like to read about incredible accomplishments made by other people. The text is formal and is about Philippe Croizon who in 2 years learnt to swim without his limbs. He lost of all of his limbs in 1994 while he was removing a television aerial from a roof and it hit a power line. However source 3 is a book extract aimed at adults who like reading about geography in general. The text is formal and is about Christopher Ondaatje who crosses part of Lake Victoria. On his journey there he talks about the spectacular sunrise he sees behind Mwanza. He also talks about the experience with ferry rides and the past experience about one of those ferries going down just outside Mwanza and that people were killed.
In comparison with source 3, source 2 is a happier and also more exciting and the reader feels more drawn to the fact that after 16 years after losing all of his limbs, Philippe Croizon crosses Channel than the fact that in source 3 the story is taken more calmly and less exciting to be taking a ferry across the lake.
Furthermore, in source 2 the contrast between the fact that the man, 2 years ago “could barely swim at all” and him saying after the channel swim “I did it. I’m so happy” is evocative. Moreover, this shows that despite the fact that he lost all of his limbs, he could still do something incredible which occurs at the beginning of the article, engaging the reader and setting a tone of excitement and most of all pride. However in source 3, there are only a few evocative moments in the extract – “the fish eagles screeched their mocking cry”, “spectacular sunrise”. However none of which express excitement or pride.
The difference in language used for effect is that in source 3, short sentences are employed to enhance meaning and effect: “an idyllic spot”, “no other sounds”, “spectacular sunrise”,
In comparison with source 3, source 2 is a happier and also more exciting and the reader feels more drawn to the fact that after 16 years after losing all of his limbs, Philippe Croizon crosses Channel than the fact that in source 3 the story is taken more calmly and less exciting to be taking a ferry across the lake.
Furthermore, in source 2 the contrast between the fact that the man, 2 years ago “could barely swim at all” and him saying after the channel swim “I did it. I’m so happy” is evocative. Moreover, this shows that despite the fact that he lost all of his limbs, he could still do something incredible which occurs at the beginning of the article, engaging the reader and setting a tone of excitement and most of all pride. However in source 3, there are only a few evocative moments in the extract – “the fish eagles screeched their mocking cry”, “spectacular sunrise”. However none of which express excitement or pride.
The difference in language used for effect is that in source 3, short sentences are employed to enhance meaning and effect: “an idyllic spot”, “no other sounds”, “spectacular sunrise”,