1. DEFINITION
It is a kind of text type that
presents arguments or reasons to support the opinion. It is aimed to persuade
the readers or listeners that something should or should not be the case. The
difference of analytical and hortatory exposition is on the term of its generic
structure in the last part that is called as reiteration in analytical and
recommendation in hortatory exposition. The function of both is quite
different. In analytical exposition, reiteration is used to give emphasize on
the writer’s opinion by restating point of view. While in hortatory exposition,
recommendation is used to give advice or such a suggestion to the readers to
make a choice by considering the presented arguments. In short the purpose of
hortatory exposition text is to argue a case for against a particular position
or point of view and it purposes a suggestion in the end of the argumentation.
Some examples of hortatory exposition are: Editorial, letter to the editor, and
letter to a politician.
2. GENERIC
STRUCTURE
The generic structure of hortatory exposition is:
1. An Introductory Statement : It
consists of the author’s point of view (thesis), preview of the
arguments that will follow in the next section, and a question or emotional
statement to get audience attention.
2. A series of arguments to
convince the audience: This part is significant to support about the
thesis. Therefore, it needs some requirements. They are explained as follow;
- A
new paragraph is used for each argument
- Each
new paragraph begins with topic sentence
- After
topic sentence comes the details to support the arguments
- Emotive
words are used to persuade the audience into believing the author.
3. Recommendation: statement of
what should or should not happen or be done based on the given arguments.
3. LANGUAGE
FEATURES
Common grammatical patterns in hortatory exposition include:
- Abstract nouns, e.g. culture, etc.
- Action verbs, e.g. value, etc.
- Connectives, e.g. first, second, etc.
- Modal auxiliaries: Should, ought to, had better
4. EXAMPLE
COUNTRY
CONCERN
In all discussion over the removal of leaded vehicles from
petrol (and atmosphere) there doesn’t seem to have been any mention of the
difference between driving in the city and the country.
While I realize my leaded petrol car is polluting the air
wherever I drive, I feel that when you travel through the country, where you
only see another car every five to ten minutes, the problem is not as severe as
when traffic is concentrated on city roads.
Those
who want to penalize older, leaded petrol vehicles and their owners don’t seem
to appreciate that in the country there is no public transport to fall back
upon and one’s own vehicle is the only way to get about.
I feel that country people, who often have to travel huge
distances to the nearest town and who already spend a great deal of money on
petrol, should be treated differently to the people who live in the city.
