Comparison between ‘Fine French Food’ and ‘Eating in Paris’
Text A (Fine French Foods) and Text B have several similarities in terms of their modes, lexis and semantics but are influenced by different audiences. Also both texts connote similar purposes and have a positive viewpoint of Paris and its culture.
Similarly, both texts are transcripts and have spoken modes. However, text A is a Lonely Planet advert which clearly shows it is planned and pre-written. Whereas, the spoken mode of Text B is a transcript of conservation between friends and unlike Text A it is a spontaneous conversation. This shows a positive portrayal of Paris as it highlights how spontaneous and free-spirited Paris truly is. Even though Text B is as a transcript, but it is multi-modal due to the fact that is displays feature of a written speech because the transcript was planned rather than being spontaneous. Even though both texts are transcripts they have differing modality as text A was planned and written for its purpose whereas Text B was spontaneous and unplanned.
However the purpose Text B varies from Text A as the primary purpose of Text A Is to persuade the audience to visit Paris whereas Text B’s is to entertain and to describe experiences of the cuisine in Paris. This is highlighted in Text B due to the negative adjectives that are used in the transcript such as “disgusting”; this reveals the negative aspects of Paris’ culture unlike in Text A where only positive adjective are used in describing the culture and atmosphere of Paris.
The audience of Text A varies from Text B as it is aimed at adults that watch TV with an interest in food or travel. This is evident due the sophisticated lexical choices made in the text. For example, statistics are used “80% of the population”; this shows how whole of Paris is immersed and driven by its traditional cuisine which engages and interests the audience. Additional sensual imagery is included, for example stage directs such as “((conversations in French in the background))” which also creates an immersion of the audience in the culture and cuisine of Paris. On the other hand, the audience of Text B are the people that are included in the conversation: a secondary audience may become confused as they do not understand why the dialogue is going in depth about food.
Unlike text B, text A highlights historical context around Paris such as “the restaurant…was born in Paris in 1765”. This entices the audience as it emphasises how traditional Paris truly is and also how it influences others. Additionally, it illustrates how culture can evolve over time but also how certain element can stay the same.
The grammar in text B differs from Text A as it has micro pauses – these reinforce that it is a spontaneous conversation. Also, the overlapping shows how the speakers know each other as they are not following formal conventions such as turn taking.
Similarly, in both texts, there is a use of superlatives evident. In Text A “most” is used because Paris’ specialism is cuisine so it entices and appeals to the audience. Text B
Text A displays a semantic field of food due to adjective such as “gastronomic”; this reveals the relationship between food and culture which emphasises the two key attractions of Paris. Similarly, Text B shows use of superlatives but Text B portrays shows a juxtaposition of positive and negative superlatives. For example, “best” and “worst” are used; this reveals that in Paris there are going to be things and experiences that you are going love and hate. From another perspective, superlatives represent the extreme quality of things which portrays that the French culture offers experiences of extreme quality.
In conclusion, the major similarities are in the mode and the format. Also, both texts portray Paris in a very positive light and how there cuisine has a lot to offer to tourists that are seeking to experience the culture of Paris. Additionally, both texts inform the audience about aspects of the French culture, especially the culture.