Lesson video

Hello, and thank you for joining me for today's lesson.

I'm Mrs. Butterworth and I'll be guiding you through the learning.

Now, today's lesson focuses on comparing writers' tone and methods.

And this is really interesting because you can start to see how two texts may be about the same thing, but actually they present that subject in a very different way through tone and use of methods.

So shall we get started? So by the end of this lesson, you will compare how two writers convey their viewpoints through tone and methods.

Let's look at those keywords that we are going to need to use in today's lesson.

They are incredulous, authoritative, introspective, defiant, and provocative.

So some really good tonal words there.

Let's see what they mean.

So we've got incredulous, I love this word.

And this is the idea that you are unwilling or unable to believe something.

So you are incredulous.

Authoritative.

So if you appear authoritative, you seem knowledgeable and command respect.

Introspective.

So you may feel introspective if you are looking inward or you are reflecting on one's own thoughts and feelings.

So a kind of introspective tone would be quite reflective and quite reserved.

Now, defiant means to show resistance or disobedience.

So you can be defiant if you are refusing to do something or yeah, just that refusal or that disobedience.

Provocative.

This describes something that stirs up strong reactions or emotions.

So when we think about Emmeline Pankhurst's speech, it's quite provocative because it's quite extreme.

It's quite angry in its tone, which can provoke quite strong reactions.

So that makes it provocative.

Okay, so the outline of our lesson looks like this.

We're going to start by looking at language and tone.

So we're gonna look at how we can identify tone and then explore how writers use language to create those specific tones.

And then we're gonna look at comparing methods.

So let's begin with language and tone.

Being able to identify the overall tone of a text can help you to understand the writer's attitude.

I always find this is quite a good place to start in considering tone because really thinking about how the writer thinks or feels about something can really help you identify their attitude.

So what I want us to do now is I want us to look at this simple sentence.

"I can't believe you did that." And we're gonna use this to help us think about how we can identify tone.

So "I can't believe you did that".

So in a moment we're gonna look at some variations on this sentence and I want you to discuss what tone is created and how do you know.

So I'm gonna read them aloud, which will hopefully also help you locate that tone.

"I find it rather incredulous that you engaged in such behavior." "Well, aren't you just the model citizen?" "I'm absolutely furious that you went ahead and did that." "I had higher hopes for you than to see you do that." Okay, so pause the video and discuss what tone is created and how do you know? Off you go.

Great work, thanks everyone.

I like how some of you were playing with those sentences by reading them aloud to really try and understand the tone that is happening.

And when I read in my head, I very often find that I read in a particular way so that I can help to identify the tone.

So it's quite a good strategy to begin using.

So this first one is quite formal, isn't it? So I would say that I would pick up on the formal tone because of the use of sophisticated and authoritative language.

You know, "I find it rather incredulous that you engage in such behavior".

You can't help but say it in that tone.

And this one.

"Well, aren't you just the model citizen?" It's very sarcastic, isn't it? Because you can see that they're almost saying the opposite, aren't they? And the use of rhetorical question and exaggerated description and the adverb "just" really adds to the overall tone of sarcasm.

Now this one.

"I'm absolutely furious that you went ahead and did that." Yes, absolutely, there's that angry tone there because we get the adverb "absolutely", and it really emphasizes the verb "furious".

So that tone is definitely very angry.

And then finally.

"I had higher hopes for you than to see you do that." Oh, it's that disappointed tone, that tone that we definitely don't want to hear.

And that use of the phrase "higher hopes" really emphasizes that disappointed tone that is being presented there.

So you can start to see how language choices can be adapted to create an overall tone.

All of these sentences, all of these sentences said the same thing.

However, their adaptation of language presented them in a different way.

They gave them a different tone.

Okay, so which tonal word best describes this sentence? "It is unbelievable that you would assume the worst of us." Is it A, B, or C? Well done to everyone that said B, yes, incredulous.

It uses the word unbelievable, doesn't it? Which links to that definition of the word incredulous.

And I think looking at the punctuation here is a really good indicator as well.

We've got that exclamation point, and if you had more of a neutral tone, I don't think you'll be using an exclamation point 'cause you wouldn't be quite so emotive.

So incredulous really describes that tone.

Okay, I would like you to look at all of these tonal words below and discuss which tonal words could you use to describe the attitudes of Williams and Pankhurst towards achieving gender equality in "Letter to the Dreamers" and "Freedom or Death"? Pause the video so you can discuss, think, or maybe even jot down some of your ideas.

Off you go.

Excellent, thanks everyone for considering that.

It is so useful to have some tonal words in your repertoire.

It makes comparing writers' attitudes and perspectives a lot easier and a lot more interesting.

So I think some of you picked out that perhaps Emmeline Pankhurst is, she sounds quite desperate at times, doesn't she, with her tone.

And I think that's a really good tonal word to discuss that.

Serena Williams, perhaps more resilient.

She even uses that word in her speech.

So they're quite different tones there.

Emmeline Pankhurst I think comes across as a lot more angry in her speech compared to Serena Williams' tone in her letter.

And I'd now like you to discuss briefly why you chose those tonal words.

So perhaps look back at those texts and consider what your choices were and why you chose those tonal words.

So pause the video so you can discuss that now.

Excellent, well done everyone.

So all of those discussions will come in really handy as we move through this lesson.

So let's keep going.

So we're going to consider Emmeline Pankhurst's powerful speech "Freedom or Death" first.

And here are some of the words that we thought of to describe the tone of her speech.

So we've got provocative, incredulous, defiant, and authoritative.

And I'd like you to look at the quotes that go with these tonal words.

And I'd like you to pick out the keywords that create that tone and consider why has Pankhurst made these choices.

Let's read the quotes together first.

So for the tonal word provocative, the quote is, "Women have adopted revolutionary methods in order to win the rights of citizenship".

So what are the keywords in that quote that create a provocative tone? Let's look at the next quote, so incredulous.

"I am adjudged because of my life to be a dangerous person under sentence of penal servitude in a convict prison." So what are the key words in that quote that create this kind of incredulous tone? And this one.

"We were called militant and we were quite willing to accept the name.

We were determined." Which key word in that quote links to the idea of a defiant tone? And then finally, authoritative.

"A very simple fact - that women are human beings." So what makes that sound authoritative? Okay, so pause the video so you've got time to discuss this or you may just wish to think to yourself.

Pause the video now.

Okay, so shall we compare our answers and see what we've got? Okay, so for that word provocative, I've picked out this word "revolutionary methods" because that really links to the kind of extreme methods that Pankhurst is advocating.

And it's also challenging because it's also provocative because it challenges the status quo.

So it challenges what at the time was expected of women.

So these methods as well are usually associated with men.

So Pankhurst is revealing the hypocrisy and challenging societal norms. So we have to consider when this text, when this speech was written, which was 1913.

So women talking about using revolutionary methods was incredibly provocative.

And what about incredulous? So the word I picked out was, "I am adjudged" because that declarative sentence really emphasizes Pankhurst's disbelief.

You know, the idea that she is being judged as a criminal, and it also continues to challenge systemic inequality because she cannot believe that she's being treated in this way, which is very different to how men are treated in this situation.

And then in this speech, we get a very defiant tone.

And the words that I picked out here was the statement, "we were determined".

That really links to that defiant tone.

You know, they're not going to give up.

And the word determined directly links to that defiant tone, doesn't it? This idea that they're gonna do it, they're determined to do it.

And Pankhurst does this to present the urgency and power of the movement.

So that defiant tone really bolsters that urgency and that power needed to continue.

And then authoritative.

I've picked out here this declarative, "a very simple fact", because it sounds very authoritative.

She knows what she's talking about, she knows what she wants to present, and it really supports Pankhurst's commanding and persuasive persona.

You might realize the more you read this speech, the more that I've read this speech, the more I've realized that she has this very commanding persona that's linked to this authoritative tone.

You know, you start to believe everything she says and it really galvanizes action from her audience.

Question time.

In Pankhurst's speech she describes being "determined" and a "soldier".

Which word best describes the tone created? Is it A, B, C, or D? Are you ready for the answer? It is indeed B, defiant.

So yeah, that determined.

You know, she's a soldier fighting.

It sounds very defiant.

She's not going to let anything stop her.

It's a very defiant tone.

Excellent work, let's keep going.

And what I would like you to do is I would like you to locate three quotes in the text that match these descriptions of tone.

So let's read those descriptions together.

So Williams creates a personal tone.

So you'll need to look in the text and see if you can find a quote that conveys a personal tone.

So where do we see her being quite personal? Through self-reflection, Williams is introspective in her tone.

So look for a quote where we see Williams may be reflecting on her own experiences.

And to present her powerful message, Williams conveys an assertive tone.

So where do we hear her being quite forceful but respectful in the same way? Okay, so pause the video and find those three quotes to match those three statements.

Off you go.

Okay, so should we share some answers? Let's compare our quotes.

You may have something different, which is absolutely fine, just as long as you can justify why it matches that tone.

So let's just go through those explanations once more.

So in terms of the personal tone, Williams' use of anecdote is effective in creating a personal tone which creates a relationship with the reader.

And then let's think about this introspective tone.

Referring to her own personal experiences creates a reflective, introspective tone.

And then finally, you know, this quote really makes her stance clear.

And the short sentence, "nor would you", is arguably quite confrontational.

And it really challenges the reader to consider their viewpoint.

So again, it's really assertive, that challenging tone creates this kind of assertive feeling that Serena Williams is going for.

So true or false time.

Using an anecdote can create a personal tone.

Think back to what we have just explored.

Is that true or false? True, absolutely, well done.

Now pick A or B.

And the answer is B, absolutely.

Arguably writers do this to create a rapport with the audience and engage them in their message.

So using those personal anecdotes makes the audience feel included and creates that relationship between writer and reader.

Okay, so now it's over to you.

So what I would like you to do is I would like you to use the sentence starters and the tonal words to write a summary of Pankhurst and Williams' use of tone.

So you've got your sentence starters there and you have your tonal words there as well.

Now you may not use every single tonal word, but use as many as you can to make an effective summary of those writers' use of tone.

Okay, so you'll definitely need to pause the video to give yourself time to do this.

So you need to grab your pen, your laptop, however you choose to work and get this task completed.

Ready to pause the video? Off you go.

Okay, so here is a completed paragraph.

We'll just read through.

Again, you may have something different, which is absolutely fine, it may be even better than this.

Or you may just wish to use this to help complete your own summary.

I just want to ensure that we all have a lovely summary on tone.

So let's read it together.

Williams creates a personal and reflective tone in order to connect with the audience and present her message in a relatable way.

Williams achieves this in her use of anecdote.

Contrastingly Pankhurst creates a tone that is defiant and authoritative, which enables her to convey the urgency of her message and her commitment to the movement.

This is reflected when she refers to herself as a "soldier" and "determined".

So isn't it interesting how both of these texts are on gender inequality, generally about gender inequality, but they both create such different tones within their writing.

I find it really interesting and it's a really perceptive thing to talk about when writing comparative responses on attitudes and perspectives.

Okay, great work so far, let's keep going.

So now we've thought about tone, we now want to think about methods, and we want to look at how we can compare writers' methods and how they have used them in their texts.

Okay, let's keep going.

So before considering a writer's use of methods, it can be helpful to think about purpose, audience, and form of the text because this will also have an impact on the writer's choices.

So what I'd like you to do is I'd like you to discuss the following questions.

So what is the purpose of the texts? Is it the same for both Williams and Pankhurst? So yes, they are both writing to persuade, but can we be even more specific? Who is the audience? Are Williams and Pankhurst addressing the same people? What is the form? Why would Williams choose a letter and why would Pankhurst choose a speech? Okay, so pause the video so you've got time to discuss your ideas or you may just wish to quietly think by yourself.

Okay, pause the video, off you go.

Okay, let's just feed back some of the answers to those questions.

So what is the purpose? So thank you, Sam.

I think both want to raise awareness of gender inequality and inspire change.

Absolutely.

However, Williams' letter is more about personal resilience, whereas Pankhurst's speech is advocating for systemic change.

So there's a definite sense that Williams is more about inspiring individuals where Pankhurst wants to change the system completely.

Who is the audience? Now this is interesting because, thank you Jin, for pointing this out.

Williams only addresses women.

So in her letter she, because of the form, she addresses specifically women.

However, the interesting thing with this letter is it's an open letter.

So it has been published online.

So this would reach a much wider audience and therefore provoke different responses.

Because it's not just the peoples that she wants to reach reading it, it's a wider audience who may have some different opinions.

Pankhurst addresses both men and women 'cause she wants to galvanize action from both men and women.

And it's actually almost confrontational and in tone.

So she's really challenging her audience.

So she's both challenging them but also asking them to get involved.

So as a speech it would really reach a wide audience and she wants to make sure that her message reaches every single person in that audience.

And then finally, thank you, Sophia.

Now this is interesting that perhaps Williams chose a letter in order to present her own experience and inspire other women.

It feels much more personal.

Yeah, and there is a definite sort of focus in Williams' letter on empowering women and inspiring women to be resilient and to really fight for change.

Whereas Pankhurst, she wants to get everyone involved, and speeches are traditionally quite emotive and given to incite action.

So if you think about famous speeches, so for example, Martin Luther King's speech, if you've seen him talk, his speech is very emotive, it's very animated.

And they do this because they want people to take action and they create a lot of interest in a cause.

So Pankhurst has chosen the speech to ensure maximum impact.

She does not want her message to get lost.

So we can use this information on purpose, audience, and form, to consider and evaluate why the writers have made specific language choices.

So remind me, please, when evaluating a writer's choice of language and methods, which three areas should you consider, purpose and what's missing? Yes, that's right, purpose, audience, form, really, really useful things to consider when analyzing texts.

When comparing different writers' attitudes and perspectives, you need to consider the methods they use.

So this is really important.

So one way we can do that is you can start by identifying a method and give an example.

Then in this case, Pankhurst, you want to think about how and why does Pankhurst use this method.

So first of all, once you've thought about your method and the example, how and why does Pankhurst use this method? You then want to think about how and why does the other writer, in this case Williams, how does she use this method? Before finally thinking about whether it is the same or different.

Do they use the method in the same or a different way? And within this you want to consider purpose, audience, and form.

So perhaps because of the form, the writers use the method in a different way.

Let's see what this looks like in action.

So I've said here that they both use battle imagery.

So both Pankhurst and Williams use the imagery of battle.

"I'm here as a soldier", "fight".

Now I'm gonna think about how Pankhurst uses this.

So Pankhurst, and explain how Pankhurst uses this.

So Pankhurst uses the imagery of a battle to convey the urgency of the issues and the aggressive methods required to fight for societal change.

How and why does Williams use this method? So Williams uses the imagery of a battle to reveal her own personal fight for gender inequality.

This is to inspire resilience and change in other women.

And now we want to, now we've explained both of those uses, we want to consider is it the same, is it different? How have they both used that method? So Pankhurst's vivid use of imagery furthers the defiant tone of her speech.

This contrasts Williams' use, which is much more introspective.

So you can see here how they can use the same method, but it can be used in very different ways.

And Pankhurst's use of imagery furthers the emotive and evocative purpose of the speech.

She wants to galvanize action in both men and women in order to enact systematic and political change.

Whereas, so we've got our good comparison there.

Whereas Williams wants to maintain the personal intimacy of a letter.

True or false? Both Williams and Pankhurst use the imagery of warfare in exactly the same way.

Is that true or false? That's right, it's false.

There are some differences there.

So justify your answer by picking A or B.

What did you pick? Did you pick B? Yay, excellent.

So Pankhurst creates an urgent tone, like a call to action, whereas, we've got our comparison there, Williams is more focused on personal resilience and empowerment.

Okay, so it's over to you for a practice task.

So what I would like you to do is I would like you to complete the grid using evidence from both texts, which can be found in the additional materials.

Now this grid is laid out exactly like the example we just looked at with the battle imagery.

So if you need to go back and look at that example again, that will help you fill out this grid.

So you'll need to identify the method and give an example.

You'll need to explain how and why each writer uses that method before comparing them directly.

Okay, so have you got everything you need to really have a go at this task? I look forward to sharing our answers in a moment.

Off you go.

Great work everyone.

Don't worry if you haven't finished yet, we can use this feedback to help continue your work.

So I just want to use Andeep as an example here.

So Andeep has identified the method and given the example, so he's identified that they both used direct address.

Now what Andeep is struggling with is how to make his comparison specific.

So he's put here, both use direct address to speak directly to the audience and hook them in.

Now that's fine, but it could be said about any text really, couldn't it? It's not specific enough to Williams and Pankhurst and their decisions that they have made around the text.

So when we are thinking about comparisons and analyzing methods, we need to be really specific.

So if it can be said about any text, we are not being specific enough.

So one way to do this is you could try linking to purpose, audience, and form.

And you can also consider the different tones, because again, these will be really specific to the text.

So by considering those, you're gonna make your comparison specific.

So let's look, so Andeep tries this out.

So in using direct address, both writers challenging their audiences in order to motivate change and oppose gender inequality.

So Andeep's linked to the purpose of the texts there.

So it's really specific to those texts.

We know that both of them are about opposing gender inequality.

However, due to the form of her letter, Williams wants to maintain a personal tone and create a sense of unity through self-reflection and resilience.

So again, it's much more specific because Andeep is thinking about the form, and that makes it really specific to what Williams has done.

And then contrastingly, so there's that comparison, Pankhurst's use creates a more urgent and authoritative tone.

You can almost hear her calling her audience to action.

Lovely sentence.

This matches the speech form, which is conventionally more emotive and provocative.

So thinking about the choice of form, thinking about Pankhurst's specific use just makes this much more specific to the text and doesn't sound general or make general comments about it.

Well done everyone, we have reached the end of the lesson.

So lots to think about there and I hope you can start to see how interesting it is that writers can be writing about the same thing, but they can have very different attitudes and perspectives and they can present this through tone and methods.

And I think this is just a really interesting way to think about language 'cause it just shows how adaptable and how powerful language can be.

So we have and we know that identifying the overall tone of a text can help to understand the writer's attitude.

Comparing the tone used by each writer makes for a subtle point of comparison.

When writers share similar attitudes, it is possible to evaluate the different methods they use to convey these ideas.

And always consider why the author has selected the form that they have.

Well done everyone.

I can't wait to do this all again soon so I will see you in another lesson.

Until then, goodbye.