What are the comparable factors and how do they help you to explore change?
The topics mentioned in text J reflect traditional stereotypes of woman. For example, there are frequent examples of language within the lexical field of cooking- a role traditonally associated with women. This contrasts with text K which talks about women going things through a "workplace" and "abortion"- things completely unacceptable for women in the contect of text J.
How are the techniques suitable for the target audiences of that
time and how might audiences of the other time react or what might be
changed to suit them?
Text J refers to the wife of a household as "mistress". This is approproiate for the reader of the audience at the time the text was written as the marked term was used to describe the "master and mistress" of a house. This would of had quite positive connotations asscociated with power as they were the woman in charge. However, diachronically the noun "mistress" has pejorated over time tocome a derogatory label. It is now associated with negative commotations of adultary which is how a modern reader would interpret this. This relates to the sapir- whorf hypothesis in that it matters what you call something.
What are the significant aspects of each text that are worth
commenting on and how can you link those to terminology, theory and
context?
new words due to brands, eg, "TopShop". New neologisms through coinage due to medical advances, eg, "Botox".
