Humans main source of communication is through written and spoken language. Through the context of this communication, there is a lot to be learned. Among other things, an author's nationality can affect the content of the writing. This can be seen in Edmund S. Morgan and G.M. Trevelyan’s accounts of The American Revolution. It is important to see how context affects the writing of history because it allows the reader to be actively aware that the account that is given is not the 100% truth.
Knowing the way that context and language works is important when reading historical and academic texts. In the book Language in Thought and Action, S.I. Hayakawa explains how through the use of context, a reader can infer many things about words, meanings, and the author. The way that certain words are placed in a sentence or a paragraph and the words that surround …show more content…
The author Morgan referred to the “American patriots” (462), patriots being a positively biased word opposed to the negatively biased word radicals. Morgan also used words that sympathize with Americans and shows which side he feels the emotional attachment for. Even though America had a lot going for it, that “unfortunately did not ensure an American victory” (463). The word unfortunately tells the reader that he identifies with the Americans and would have preferred a clear victory for America. He also clearly criticizes the British, and although a historian on either side would have to, the statement “British political leaders… would be no better at running a war than they were at running an empire” (462) is blunt and to the point in a way that a British person most likely would not be. A British person would have worded that same information in a way that would make the reader more sympathetic towards the situation of the british, and less harsh about their inability to run the war and their country
Knowing the way that context and language works is important when reading historical and academic texts. In the book Language in Thought and Action, S.I. Hayakawa explains how through the use of context, a reader can infer many things about words, meanings, and the author. The way that certain words are placed in a sentence or a paragraph and the words that surround …show more content…
The author Morgan referred to the “American patriots” (462), patriots being a positively biased word opposed to the negatively biased word radicals. Morgan also used words that sympathize with Americans and shows which side he feels the emotional attachment for. Even though America had a lot going for it, that “unfortunately did not ensure an American victory” (463). The word unfortunately tells the reader that he identifies with the Americans and would have preferred a clear victory for America. He also clearly criticizes the British, and although a historian on either side would have to, the statement “British political leaders… would be no better at running a war than they were at running an empire” (462) is blunt and to the point in a way that a British person most likely would not be. A British person would have worded that same information in a way that would make the reader more sympathetic towards the situation of the british, and less harsh about their inability to run the war and their country