The story “The Immigrant Contribution,” by John F. Kennedy, has a formal and sophisticated diction compared to the story, “A Quilt of a Country”, by Anna Quindlen. There are a few similarities, such as the topic of each story revolves around immigrants. There are also many differences in the writing style of the two authors. One has a well-written, educated writing style. The other has an informal, emotional writing style. John F. Kennedy most definitely has a formal and sophisticated diction in the story “The Immigrant Contribution”. The biggest similarity between the two stories is the topic. They both largely revolve around immigrants in some way. The first sentence in Kennedy’s story is, “Oscar Handlin has said, ‘Once I thought to write
…show more content…
The diction, or type and tone of the writing, differs greatly between the two authors. Quindlen’s writing is informal and plays on the emotions of the reader. Kennedy’s writing on the other hand, is formal and sophisticated. An example of Quindlen’s writing occurs in Passage 5, “Once these disparate parts were held together by a common enemy, by the fault lines of world wars and the electrified fence of communism,” (Quindlen, 15). Quindlen doesn’t use educated words, and she plays on the fact that everyone came together as one during tragic events such as the World Wars. An example of Kennedy’s writing is, “In the area of religion, all the major American faiths were brought to this country from abroad. The multiplicity of sects established the American tradition of religious pluralism and assured to all the freedom of worship and separation of church and state pledged in the Bill of Rights,” (Kennedy, 26). Not only does Kennedy use ‘big words’ in this selection, but his writing is absolutely brilliant. He writes with insightfulness into the situation, but he still manages to do it with sophistication. The biggest difference is the diction, or type of writing, between the two
The diction, or type and tone of the writing, differs greatly between the two authors. Quindlen’s writing is informal and plays on the emotions of the reader. Kennedy’s writing on the other hand, is formal and sophisticated. An example of Quindlen’s writing occurs in Passage 5, “Once these disparate parts were held together by a common enemy, by the fault lines of world wars and the electrified fence of communism,” (Quindlen, 15). Quindlen doesn’t use educated words, and she plays on the fact that everyone came together as one during tragic events such as the World Wars. An example of Kennedy’s writing is, “In the area of religion, all the major American faiths were brought to this country from abroad. The multiplicity of sects established the American tradition of religious pluralism and assured to all the freedom of worship and separation of church and state pledged in the Bill of Rights,” (Kennedy, 26). Not only does Kennedy use ‘big words’ in this selection, but his writing is absolutely brilliant. He writes with insightfulness into the situation, but he still manages to do it with sophistication. The biggest difference is the diction, or type of writing, between the two