Text A ‘Tim Winton’s endorsement of the AMCS Sustainable Seafood guide’ and Text B ‘Product Labels for Vitamin
Waters’ both function as a means of persuasion and entertainment, predominantly for advertising purposes
within the marketing domain. Whilst both texts achieve the same purpose, to entice its audience; potential
buyers, to purchase the items articulated, the flavoured mineral water and sustainable food guide, both achieve
this through completely different formal registers. Tim Winton’s formal register is contrasted dramatically with
Vitamin Waters informal casual dialogue, and thus the linguistic choices of the writer vary.
Contextual factors clearly influence the impact of formality within the discourse and thus the overall achievement
of the texts purpose. Whilst both texts attract a similar audience, potential buyers of the product, Text A clearly
attracts a more invested and interested audience, as it can be assumed the audience have a level of familiarity
with topic and have taken the time to read this review considering the text itself is quite dense. Text B’s audience
however are indicative of individuals who may be browsing the shelves for a quick beverage and are thus not as
invested in their choice of drink, time limits obviously may impact on their need to read the articulated discourse.
Furthermore the audience impacts the mode in which the discourse is being viewed. Both texts are written modes
of discourse however as Text A is indicative of a formal register, Standard English in which clear, traditional and
“proper” grammatical structures is evident. We can see this throughout the text e. LL 1-5’Australians are
passionate about food and our culture is in the grip of an exciting food revolution……’. The use of Standard
English here maintains a level of authority and indicates a sense of knowledge and power over the subject, and
can therefore be linked back to the consultative formal nature of the discourse. This is contrasted with text B in
which Non Standard English is evident and thus changes the nature of the mode. As seen in Label 1 LL-2-3 ‘omg!
(oh mi goodness) wtf (what the fudge) is up with all the txt talk?...”, the language not only facilitates the texts
purpose but captures the intended informal audience, passes buy, to purchase the product, thus influencing the
casual register and formality.
The lexicon of Text A is indicative of the food and beverage industry with the overall purpose of marketing,
Culinary terms form part of the lexis as do scientific and environmental jargon. Scientific and environmental
jargon is used heavily throughout Text A. Seen in LL21 ‘overfishing Given the serious nature of the text, such
jargon reiterate the writers authority and the texts credibility, contributing to the consultative formal register of
the discourse. In stark contrast to Text A, Text B’s lexicon is established as colloquial and informal straight away
with the label ‘the XXX’. With its connotations being adult only it merely refers to the label as a trifecta of fruity
ingredients, using humour to establish this. Humour also helps to contribute to the casual informal register, in
which the abbreviations ‘WTF, OMG, WTF, LOL’ in LL2-3 are euphemistically translated, clearly to avoid censorship
laws and capture the audience’s attention. The lexicon also implies the audience has an understanding of text
speak and online chat an informal locale of communication understood by young consumers.
Clearly the coherence and cohesion of both of the texts influences the success of the discourse and the degree of
formality. Text A uses a logical ordering of ideas, firstly an introduction about Australia’s penchant for seafood
and the role it plays in Australian cuisines as evident in LL1-19, then an expose of the state of Australian oceans
and the critical state of the marine life (LL20-41), and finally a possible solution to the problem by using a guide to
sustainably caught fish (LL42-42). This logical ordering of ideas help to achieve clarity and understanding for the
reader as without this flow of information the discourse would be ambiguous.