Crawford asserts in his speech that official English legislation is restricting the national liberty of freedom, detrimental to the disadvantaged groups and hurting national interests by giving compelling evidences, logical and rational tone and effective counterarguments. Mujica argues that official English policy is responding to the declining proficiency among citizens, addressing the national unity and weigh on the cost of multilingual service by presenting figure-loaded examples and evidence, dramatic tone, relatively effective counterargument.
The comparisons on effectiveness of arguments presents in both authors will be illustrated in three major areas, evidences, tone and counterarguments. All in all, James Crawford’s arguments is …show more content…
One thing I want to say about tone. The different tones in two essays exert different impacts on the reader. Tone in Mauro Mujica speech is less strong or passionate than James Crawford. James Crawford uses emotionally charged tone and uses massive negative-meaning to express disapproval of such language policy, for example, harmful, unnecessary, divisive, pointless, ignorance, discrimination, discourage, self-defeating, doubtful, bad, and damaging etc. while the vocabularies used by Mauro Mujica are tend to be less negative and more contemplative, for example, retreat, cheap, linguistic island, and sensible etc.
The rhetorical questions asked by James Crawford in his speech appeal to reader, prompting reader to think twice and creating a tone (attitude) of being critical, derisive and accusatory. For example, “Don’t limited-English speakers face language barriers in countless other situations on a daily basis? Who understands the handicap of limited English proficiency in this country better than they do?” On the contrary, Mauro Mujica tends to present the hard facts to her audiences without appealing them to
The comparisons on effectiveness of arguments presents in both authors will be illustrated in three major areas, evidences, tone and counterarguments. All in all, James Crawford’s arguments is …show more content…
One thing I want to say about tone. The different tones in two essays exert different impacts on the reader. Tone in Mauro Mujica speech is less strong or passionate than James Crawford. James Crawford uses emotionally charged tone and uses massive negative-meaning to express disapproval of such language policy, for example, harmful, unnecessary, divisive, pointless, ignorance, discrimination, discourage, self-defeating, doubtful, bad, and damaging etc. while the vocabularies used by Mauro Mujica are tend to be less negative and more contemplative, for example, retreat, cheap, linguistic island, and sensible etc.
The rhetorical questions asked by James Crawford in his speech appeal to reader, prompting reader to think twice and creating a tone (attitude) of being critical, derisive and accusatory. For example, “Don’t limited-English speakers face language barriers in countless other situations on a daily basis? Who understands the handicap of limited English proficiency in this country better than they do?” On the contrary, Mauro Mujica tends to present the hard facts to her audiences without appealing them to