ENG2601 EXAM REVISION S1 2019 ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS & ANSWERS JULES KHOMO
ENG2601 REVISION NOTES TAKEN FROM TUTORIAL LETTERS. NOT ALL ARE
AVAILABLE, SO I HAVE ONLY INCLUDED THOSE I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FIND.
2014
MEMO ANSWER:
Dear Students
Thank you for submitting your first assignment. A number of you dealt competently with
the questions and provided well-researched, well-argued essays. Well done!
This assignment is based on Study Units 1, 2 and 3 of your Study Guide. In these study
units you were introduced to persuasive and rhetorical devices, register and genre as well
as the relationship between language and meaning. Therefore, you were expected to
draw on the text analysis techniques that you have developed in this module. In addition,
you needed to provide relevant evidence from the text to support your discussion. Credit
was given to those students who related the discussion to what they have learnt in the
Page 1
,ENG2601 EXAM REVISION S1 2019 ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS & ANSWERS JULES KHOMO
module ENG2601, and structured their answer in an essay format. This means that the
discussion in your essay needed to be presented in a coherent and logical manner with a
clear introduction, body and conclusion.
For this assignment you were expected to write an essay of no more than 2 ½ pages
(approximately 1000 words) in which you analyse the ‘Argument Clinic’ dialogue on
pages 175-178 of the prescribed textbook
Introducing English Language by Louise Mullany and Peter Stockwell. You needed to
read the dialogue carefully, paying particular attention to the following aspects
● • language features and strategies used by speakers in this text
● • the types of argumentation techniques that are used in this text
● • rhetorical devices in the text and the purposes for which these are used
● • the ways in which meaning is created in this text
PLEASE NOTE: The discussion provided below is an example of how you could have
approached your essay. Thus it is not exhaustive. There may be other aspects that have
not been covered in this analysis.
The discussion:
This text is a dialogue involving four speakers. Initially the conversation is between the
Receptionist, Man and Angry Man and later on Other Man joins in.
The opening of the dialogue sets out the reason why this particular Man has approached
the Argument clinic: ‘Good morning, I’d like to have an argument, please’. In addition, we
learn that Man has not been to the clinic before based on the Receptionist’s question
‘...have you been here before?’ to which he responds ‘No, this is my first time’.
It appears that the role of the Argument clinic is to train people in argument techniques
and skills, at a fee, as it can be noticed from the Other Man’s response - ‘I’m not allowed
to argue unless you PAY’. What is interesting at the beginning is how the Receptionist
responds to the request ‘I see, well we’ll see who’s free at the moment. Mr. Bakely’s free,
but he’s a little bit conciliatory. No. Try Mr. Barnhart, room 12’.
The Receptionist’s choice of words here suggests that Mr Bakely is perhaps not
assertive, forceful or challenging enough compared to Mr Barnhart. Hence the Man is
advised to approach Mr Barnhart in room 12. Mr Barnhart is characterised as someone
who is able to facilitate a stimulating, exciting and interesting argument. This implies that
Man will benefit immensely from Mr Barnhart’s approach and develop the necessary
Page 2
,ENG2601 EXAM REVISION S1 2019 ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS & ANSWERS JULES KHOMO
argumentation skills.
In terms of argumentation/persuasive techniques, the three participants - Angry Man, Man
and Other Man – all use different linguistic strategies to argue or put their points across.
For example, Angry Man tends to uses provocative language to challenge Man:
‘WHADDAYOU WANT?...DON’T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED EVIL PAN OF
DROPPINGS!..SHUT UP FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE!
YOU VACUOUS STUFFY-NOSED MALADOROUS PERVERT!!!
The choice of words here is ironical, sarcastic and somewhat humorous in effect,
because it is shocking to hear such a torrent of insults in response to what is an
inoffensive utterance. Angry Man’s response would be totally inappropriate in a normal
social situation. It can be argued that this is a deliberate attempt by Angry Man to engage
and provoke Man to respond in a similar manner to utterances such as ‘snotty faced’, ‘evil
pan of droppings’, ‘festering gob’, ‘stuffy-nosed...pervert’ etc.
Considering the context of this dialogue, specifically that this takes place at an Argument
Clinic, it would be expected that Man should be expected to present and support his
position. Unlike Angry Man, Other Man employs emphatic language ‘I have told you
once...I’m telling you I did!...Now let’s get one thing perfectly clear: I most definitely told
you!’ as a way to get Man to persuade. Even though Angry Man and Other Man use
different linguistic strategies and argumentation techniques, both are forceful and definite
in expression.
That is, the approach of the two colleagues is aimed at developing, cultivating, enhancing
and sharpening Man’s ability to reason or make his case accordingly. The conversational
exchange between Other Man and Man further reveals how both speakers use rhetorical
devices to influence the direction of the dialogue. The repeated use of utterances such as
- ‘I’ve told you...’, ‘No you didn’t!’, ‘I’m telling you I did!’, ‘You didn’t!’, ‘...Anyway, I did!’,
‘You most certainly did n ot!’ - shows the role of rhetorical devices in a communication
and the extent to which speakers can employ these as effective persuasive devices to
subtly influence the kind of response that they want to get from one another other.
It appears that Other Man creates an impact through the exaggerated use of the following
utterances: ‘I’ve told you once...I most definitely told you...Oh yes I did’. Man refutes
Other Man’s claims and defends his position by repeatedly saying ‘No you didn’t!...Oh,
this is futile...I came here for a good argument...An argument isn’t just contradiction’. It is
clear that the intention of the speakers is to manipulate the conversation to their own
benefit.
Page 3
, ENG2601 EXAM REVISION S1 2019 ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS & ANSWERS JULES KHOMO
As you can see, there is a lot you can write about and draw on from this dialogue. You
need to carefully read the text and make sense of what it is all about, then identify and
explain language strategies, argumentation techniques and rhetorical devices that are
used as well as the purposes thereof. As you can see, I have not managed to discuss
every aspect of this dialogue. However, my aim was to show you how to go about an
analysis so that you can continue in greater confidence, discussing as much as you can
in your essay and paying particular attention to the ways speakers in this text create
meaning.
Page 4
ENG2601 REVISION NOTES TAKEN FROM TUTORIAL LETTERS. NOT ALL ARE
AVAILABLE, SO I HAVE ONLY INCLUDED THOSE I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FIND.
2014
MEMO ANSWER:
Dear Students
Thank you for submitting your first assignment. A number of you dealt competently with
the questions and provided well-researched, well-argued essays. Well done!
This assignment is based on Study Units 1, 2 and 3 of your Study Guide. In these study
units you were introduced to persuasive and rhetorical devices, register and genre as well
as the relationship between language and meaning. Therefore, you were expected to
draw on the text analysis techniques that you have developed in this module. In addition,
you needed to provide relevant evidence from the text to support your discussion. Credit
was given to those students who related the discussion to what they have learnt in the
Page 1
,ENG2601 EXAM REVISION S1 2019 ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS & ANSWERS JULES KHOMO
module ENG2601, and structured their answer in an essay format. This means that the
discussion in your essay needed to be presented in a coherent and logical manner with a
clear introduction, body and conclusion.
For this assignment you were expected to write an essay of no more than 2 ½ pages
(approximately 1000 words) in which you analyse the ‘Argument Clinic’ dialogue on
pages 175-178 of the prescribed textbook
Introducing English Language by Louise Mullany and Peter Stockwell. You needed to
read the dialogue carefully, paying particular attention to the following aspects
● • language features and strategies used by speakers in this text
● • the types of argumentation techniques that are used in this text
● • rhetorical devices in the text and the purposes for which these are used
● • the ways in which meaning is created in this text
PLEASE NOTE: The discussion provided below is an example of how you could have
approached your essay. Thus it is not exhaustive. There may be other aspects that have
not been covered in this analysis.
The discussion:
This text is a dialogue involving four speakers. Initially the conversation is between the
Receptionist, Man and Angry Man and later on Other Man joins in.
The opening of the dialogue sets out the reason why this particular Man has approached
the Argument clinic: ‘Good morning, I’d like to have an argument, please’. In addition, we
learn that Man has not been to the clinic before based on the Receptionist’s question
‘...have you been here before?’ to which he responds ‘No, this is my first time’.
It appears that the role of the Argument clinic is to train people in argument techniques
and skills, at a fee, as it can be noticed from the Other Man’s response - ‘I’m not allowed
to argue unless you PAY’. What is interesting at the beginning is how the Receptionist
responds to the request ‘I see, well we’ll see who’s free at the moment. Mr. Bakely’s free,
but he’s a little bit conciliatory. No. Try Mr. Barnhart, room 12’.
The Receptionist’s choice of words here suggests that Mr Bakely is perhaps not
assertive, forceful or challenging enough compared to Mr Barnhart. Hence the Man is
advised to approach Mr Barnhart in room 12. Mr Barnhart is characterised as someone
who is able to facilitate a stimulating, exciting and interesting argument. This implies that
Man will benefit immensely from Mr Barnhart’s approach and develop the necessary
Page 2
,ENG2601 EXAM REVISION S1 2019 ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS & ANSWERS JULES KHOMO
argumentation skills.
In terms of argumentation/persuasive techniques, the three participants - Angry Man, Man
and Other Man – all use different linguistic strategies to argue or put their points across.
For example, Angry Man tends to uses provocative language to challenge Man:
‘WHADDAYOU WANT?...DON’T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED EVIL PAN OF
DROPPINGS!..SHUT UP FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE!
YOU VACUOUS STUFFY-NOSED MALADOROUS PERVERT!!!
The choice of words here is ironical, sarcastic and somewhat humorous in effect,
because it is shocking to hear such a torrent of insults in response to what is an
inoffensive utterance. Angry Man’s response would be totally inappropriate in a normal
social situation. It can be argued that this is a deliberate attempt by Angry Man to engage
and provoke Man to respond in a similar manner to utterances such as ‘snotty faced’, ‘evil
pan of droppings’, ‘festering gob’, ‘stuffy-nosed...pervert’ etc.
Considering the context of this dialogue, specifically that this takes place at an Argument
Clinic, it would be expected that Man should be expected to present and support his
position. Unlike Angry Man, Other Man employs emphatic language ‘I have told you
once...I’m telling you I did!...Now let’s get one thing perfectly clear: I most definitely told
you!’ as a way to get Man to persuade. Even though Angry Man and Other Man use
different linguistic strategies and argumentation techniques, both are forceful and definite
in expression.
That is, the approach of the two colleagues is aimed at developing, cultivating, enhancing
and sharpening Man’s ability to reason or make his case accordingly. The conversational
exchange between Other Man and Man further reveals how both speakers use rhetorical
devices to influence the direction of the dialogue. The repeated use of utterances such as
- ‘I’ve told you...’, ‘No you didn’t!’, ‘I’m telling you I did!’, ‘You didn’t!’, ‘...Anyway, I did!’,
‘You most certainly did n ot!’ - shows the role of rhetorical devices in a communication
and the extent to which speakers can employ these as effective persuasive devices to
subtly influence the kind of response that they want to get from one another other.
It appears that Other Man creates an impact through the exaggerated use of the following
utterances: ‘I’ve told you once...I most definitely told you...Oh yes I did’. Man refutes
Other Man’s claims and defends his position by repeatedly saying ‘No you didn’t!...Oh,
this is futile...I came here for a good argument...An argument isn’t just contradiction’. It is
clear that the intention of the speakers is to manipulate the conversation to their own
benefit.
Page 3
, ENG2601 EXAM REVISION S1 2019 ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS & ANSWERS JULES KHOMO
As you can see, there is a lot you can write about and draw on from this dialogue. You
need to carefully read the text and make sense of what it is all about, then identify and
explain language strategies, argumentation techniques and rhetorical devices that are
used as well as the purposes thereof. As you can see, I have not managed to discuss
every aspect of this dialogue. However, my aim was to show you how to go about an
analysis so that you can continue in greater confidence, discussing as much as you can
in your essay and paying particular attention to the ways speakers in this text create
meaning.
Page 4
