As both of the texts globally deal with the same subject the type of lexicon used is similar in some aspects. Logically, words such as science and physics are regularly used in both texts. Still, the tone in the two texts is quite different. Text 2b aspires to reach a big audience, so the tone in the text is very open. This, as has been mentioned in the previous paragraph, is partly caused by the structure, but the type of words used also contributes. In general, the words are quite simple and actual difficult words can’t be found. Also, some popular items such as comic books and toys are mentioned. This is not the case in text 2a. Here, plenty of more complex words such as ‘circumvented’ (line 6) or ‘scrutiny’ (line 8) are used. This makes the text less accessible, but what contributes to a less open tone even more is the sarcasm the author handles when talking about those people who do not loook at science the way he does. In paragraph three the writes describes these people as ‘wistfully’and states they they ‘refuse to believe’ which indicates a negative attitude towards those who think differently.
This attitude also causes the romatic images that could have been called up in paragaph three to be swept away completely before they are even there. The writer talks about ‘stars that fill the sky’ (line 13) and ‘dreams and emotions’ (line 15), but by saying that it can all be ‘reduces to the laws of physics’ no chance is given to create a strong romantic image in the mind. Images which are called up are visions of a world in which everything is bound to rules. According to the author everything is ‘governed by the same natural laws’ (line 21). Also, ‘the book of nature has been opened wide’ (lines 20-21) so there is no space for imagination. Text 2a creates a different image of what they think science should be like. This image is a lot less strict than that of text 2a because of phrases such as a ‘loose coordination’ (line 10) and a ‘mass participation experiment’ (lines 19-20). Especially the word ‘experiment’ shows that we cannot predict everything, else there would be no need to experiment. What the two texts do have in common as regards to imagery is that neither has extenced imagery.
Another aspect the two text have in common is the limited use of stylistic devices. There is some use of alliteration in both texts such as ‘specific science’ (line 5) in text 2a or ‘pioneering papers’ (line 6) in text 2b, but it can even be debated if this use was intentionally of mere coincidence. The only apparent use of a stylistic device is the hypophora the author of text 2a applies in the first paragraph to stimulate the audience to read the piece of writing.
In conclusion, one can state that even though the two texts have similar themes there are many differences. Probably, most of these are caused by the different points of view the authors of these two texts have regarding to what science should be like.
Texts
2a: What is Science, from an essay by Robert L. Park in After the science wars, edited by Keith M. Ashman and Philip S. Baringer (2001)
2b: An article in the magazine Physics Today (Februari 2004)