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 them serve to show the reader what those words mean. This can give the reader clues about many things. Specifically it can show the point of view of the author. There are many ways for an author to show bias. Snarl/Purr words that have little to no factual information but have a lot of opinion (27). Slanting, where the author utilizes the ability to only include favorable or unfavorable facts to support personal opinion or cultural views and opinions(29). Lastly, a reader can gain information of the author's point of view through the names that the author gives to certain things, whether they have good or bad implications. Slanting is one of the most obvious ways that an author will show bias, and although naming does not necessarily show bias, Trevelyans use of naming can help show his British point of view. G.M Trevelyan refers to the Americans as “backwoodsman of the Alleghenies” (466). The word backwoodsman is made to have negative implications against the people it is referring to. Trevelyan goes on to say that “The thirteen colonies were mutually jealous… divided from one another by vast distances”(467) whereas a different author could have worded that same information differently and more favorably. This is an example of slanting negatively against the Americans. The author clearly doesn’t have much faith in the colonies. This author also names the Americans in a negative way. He wrote, “the Radicals would …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 them serve to show the reader what those words mean. This can give the reader clues about many things. Specifically it can show the point of view of the author. There are many ways for an author to show bias. Snarl/Purr words that have little to no factual information but have a lot of opinion (27). Slanting, where the author utilizes the ability to only include favorable or unfavorable facts to support personal opinion or cultural views and opinions(29). Lastly, a reader can gain information of the author's point of view through the names that the author gives to certain things, whether they have good or bad implications. Slanting is one of the most obvious ways that an author will show bias, and although naming does not necessarily show bias, Trevelyans use of naming can help show his British point of view. G.M Trevelyan refers to the Americans as “backwoodsman of the Alleghenies” (466). The word backwoodsman is made to have negative implications against the people it is referring to. Trevelyan goes on to say that “The thirteen colonies were mutually jealous… divided from one another by vast distances”(467) whereas a different author could have worded that same information differently and more favorably. This is an example of slanting negatively against the Americans. The author clearly doesn’t have much faith in the colonies. This author also names the Americans in a negative way. He wrote, “the Radicals would …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