David Attenborough’s The Life of Mammals: Meat Eaters and Steve Irwin’s Africa’s Deadliest Snakes are wildlife documentaries that have similar yet different purposes. Attenborough’s has a script that is rehearsed and the natural environment is followed. Irwin’s does not have a script and the animals are picked up. However, both hosts inform the audience of the animal and how they function. Attenborough achieves this through the use of language and Irwin achieves this by being a presenter. Purpose, audience, context, language and form will be compared between the two texts.
Attenborough’s and Irwin’s purpose is to educate the audience and to inspire compassion for the animal kingdom. Attenborough achieves this by using factual information
…show more content…
Attenborough is mostly formal with the way he communicates; the language used is sophisticated, scripted and rehearsed. Irwin is mostly informal with the way he communicates; the language used is very stereotypical Australian and it is not scripted. Attenborough demonstrates sophisticated language when explaining the Siberian Tiger and the way it hunts “the ultimate in lethal grace and beauty” this is informing the viewer of the animal’s nature in the natural habitat. Irwin uses clichés while handling the snakes “sweating bullets” this expresses Irwin’s anxiety in the dangerous situation. Irwin is notorious for using Australian slang throughout his programs “you’re alright mate” this is said when handling the snakes and various other animals when Irwin attempts to calm the furious animal down. Attenborough informs the viewer of how the body of the animals work, when talking about the Fennec Fox “it cools its blood by circulating it through capillaries” this is in relation to the foxes ears. Irwin uses formal language that is subject specific “dimorphic” this is when a snake has two distinct forms. Attenborough rarely uses informal language; these can generally be taken as of a joke “the males do no more than cock a leg”. The language used by each host is relevant to the education level or age of the target audience. Attenborough expects the audience to have a prior knowledge, whereas, Irwin explains the formal language
"Everyone is influenced by their childhood. The things I write about and illustrate come from a vast range of inputs, from the earliest impressions of a little child, others from things I saw yesterday and still others from completely out of the blue, though no doubt they owe their arrival to some stimulus, albeit unconscious. I have a great love of wildlife, inherited from my parents, which show through in my subject matter, though always with a view to the humorous—not as a reflective device but as a reflection of my own fairly happy nature.
An authority figure or experts are people who have a high standard of knowledge in a certain subject, or a very well known in their expertise. By using an authority figure or an expert the audience feels like they know what they are talking about, therefore they believe what they have to say. Examples of authority figures or experts used in this documentary include OSHA expert witness and whale researcher Dave Duffus, Howard Garrett an Orca researcher, and Lori Marino a Neuroscientist. In this film these experts express their concern for the Orca species, and explain the things that SeaWorld failed to educate their trainers. For example, SeaWorld trainers were taught that an Orcas life span reaches a maximum of approximately 14 years, when in reality, Orcas have human life spans, which means they can potentially pass at the ripe age of 100. Not only that, but they were taught that it is natural and common for Orca dorsal fins to bend, when in reality only 1% of Orcas have a bent dorsal fin. This information was passed on to visitors of
The most effective piece of this documentary, however, was neither the structure of the film nor the specific questions that one is forced to answer regarding the ethical treatment of these killer whales, but the overall questions of whether or not these corporations should be allowed to continue their cycle of abuse toward the animals and whether or not we, as patrons, should encourage their behavior by giving them a monetary profit every day, every month, and every year. Ignorance is forgivable, but with the knowledge given in this documentary: the final two questions raised should be able to answer themselves.
In the article “A change of heart about animals” author Jeremy Rifkin uses rhetorical appeals such as ethos, logos, and pathos to persuade humanity in a desperate attempt to at the very least have empathy for “our fellow creatures” on account of the numerous research done in pursuit of animal rights. Rifkin explains here that animals are more like us than we imagined, that we are not the only creatures that experience complex emotions, and that we are not the only ones who deserve empathy.
Imagine yourself living in a bathtub for 25 years and you could do absolutely nothing about it. Wild orcas, better known as killer whales have been captured to entertain audiences world wide at aquariums. The most popular location being Sea World. Growing up in Miami, I could not control my excitement when it came time to go visit Lolita the killer whale at the Miami Seaquarium. To be able to see such an amazing creature right in front of me was mind blowing. How amazing is it that you can be face or face with an animal of that size? Well, I wish I'd known then what I know now. In the following paragraphs, I will start off with the difference between the life of a wild orca in the wild versus their life in captivity and I will end with reasons as to why families should not participate and give their time and money to these companies who commit such inhumane acts. I hope that towards the end of this essay, you will change your view on wild orcas and not look at them as just an animal that is used for entertainment purposes.
Attenborough’s and Irwin’s purpose is to educate the audience and to inspire respect for the animal kingdom. Attenborough achieves this by using factual information to
The snake was not aware of the man’s intentions was cautious but not yet preparing for an attack. The rattlesnake “lay ridged” through its mistrust of the man did not feel threatened so his “body was undulant” not preparing for an attack. Because of its natural instincts the snake was wary of the man’s presence but did not feel provoked enough to set up a defense. The usual instincts would have been to give a strong attack but choose not to do so. Still attentive to the man’s possible actions, the snake presents him with a warning for both their sake. Therefore as the man raised his weapon the snake set up its rattling and “shook his fair but furious signal” warning the man he “made an unprovoked attack”. The snake had not planned on attacking the man so instead of reacting swiftly the snake had given the man a warning. By doing so the snake shows its value of life because he left the man chance in avoiding an outcome with death for either side. Consequently having misjudged the man’s intent it is left with little time to protect itself from an unexpected attack. With the man suddenly attacking the snake with a hoe it “struck passionately” until it “was soon dead”. As a result of not being able to assemble an attack the snake is left with it’s only chance of winning by striking hard but with ineffective moves. Thus readers feel sympathy for the snake because it had not called for an attack that would have taken either
This paper will look analyze the sociolinguistic style of The Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger, a parody of a nature documentary narrated by czg123 (Randall). A transcript of the video will be included as well as an analysis of specific linguistic features used by Randall, the meanings indexed by these features, the style created by these features, and the importance of these features within a social context.
This book is appropriate for three-to-five years of age children as the story is very engaging and children are exposed to the Aboriginal culture. The book is illustrated in oil paint in impressionism and the whole story is in double-page illustration, which shows the landscape of Cape York and Aboriginal people. The pictures use vibrant colours including forest green and many shades of brown and the kangaroos and the snake people have red eyes. Educators can guide children to discuss the information in the image which can help children to understand how these details support meaning construction (Spence, 2004). For example, educators can tell children that the kangaroos and snake people who have red eyes reveal that they are evil, so that children can understand that adding more details in both writing and speaking can provide more information for audiences and the explicit language is very effective in constructing the meaning. Educators can use toy snakes and toy kangaroos and other materials to retell the story with children or make a small display that shows part of the
Michelle Carr uses the rhetorical mode of argumentation for the purpose of persuasion in her article, “The Reality of Zoos.” Carr focuses on the issue of the imprisonment and maltreatment of zoo animals in her article. She effectively presents her points by using the persuasive methods of pathos and logos. Carr establishes an emotional connection with the reader by recalling an occasion she noticed how unhappy zoo animals were during a childhood memory. Carr also uses logic and reasoning; she appeals to the reader by using facts and figures about the suffering zoo animals experience, for instance, the animals developing “zoochosis” and the animals being forcibly inseminated for money-making purposes. By establishing an emotional connection
The Animal Kingdom is a modern exhibit designed to follow the “natural pattern” of an African community. The most eye-popping attraction, the Kilamanjaro Safari, is an open-air, nearly barrier-free animal reserve at Florida’s Walt Disney World. It was a major shift from a cow playground to a zone of care for other wise caged animals. Here, African animals freely roam through acres of savanna, rivers, and rocky hills. The rider is advised to be aware, “You never know what could happen in the wilderness” (Tate 1).
“Animals and Research Part 4: Ethics of using animals in research.” Editorial. Seattle Post-Intelligencer 20 Apr. 2000 <http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/anml4.shtml>.
Furthermore, while zoos should conserve and encourage educational experiences within their parks, Allen points out it’s also important to take a compassionate approach in caring for each individual animal. As zoos focus more on education and conservation, they sometimes forget that animals are not alive in terms of population and individual welfare is important. Thus, it appears that Allen is taking a middle ground approach to the ongoing debate about zoos, because she is open to zoos, when they are compassionate, yet fully recognizes the downside of animal cruelty.
As an advocate of animal rights, Tom Regan presents us with the idea that animals deserve to be treated with equal respect to humans. Commonly, we view our household pets and select exotic animals in different regard as oppose to the animals we perceive as merely a food source which, is a notion that animal rights activists
With regards to the responsibility to animals a deontologist would ask themselves, do animals really feel emotion, have experiences, and is treating animals cruelly really okay? According to Tom Regan, as a moral human-being it is our duty to protect and respect animals as if they were our friends or family.