Each of the writers has a different primary purpose. It is obvious that Isabella Birds account of the jungle is written as a narrative while David Attenboroughs description is more of a non-fictional piece written to inform the reader. Thus we can see that both writers have a different purpose. By reading Birds passage, we are able to see that her primary focus is to entertain the reader, whilst providing an informative read. On the other hand, Attenboroughs piece is clearly written to inform the reader about the life cycle of trees in the jungle. From this we can deduce that the extract written by Bird is written from a more personal and less objective point of view than the piece written by Attenborough who writes from a more objective and less enthused point of view.
Each extract is organised in a different manner. Isabella Bird describes the jungle in an organised, yet not in chronological order. At first glance we can see that she has divided the passage into paragraphs so we can see that the passage is organised with some form of structure. Also each passage is divided according to its subject which would indicate that the passage is organised. David Attenborough however, has written his piece in a clear, organised manner. This would prove that his writing is obviously composed from an objective viewpoint and this is very different to the emotive and graphic composition written by Isabella Bird.
Isabella Bird uses a variety of words to describe her impression of the jungle. Words such as picturesque, graceful, majestic and wonderful make the reader think of the jungle as an amazing place, while words such as gloom and darkness make the reader picture the jungle as an intimidating figure. Another important point to note is that Birds passage is written in the first person. From this we see that Isabella Bird has several different impressions of the jungle ranging from amazing to enchanting. David Attenborough however, uses words that describe the jungle as just another place on earth. His words are not as carefully chosen as Birds and this would show that his piece was not written from a first impression of the jungle, instead it shows that David Attenborough has seen the jungle many times and is not as impressed by it as much as Isabella Bird is.
The language used by Isabella Bird is very different to that used by David Attenborough. Isabella Bird uses a variety of punctuation marks to indicate the different impressions Bird has of the jungle. Her use of emotive and graphic vocabulary creates a clear picture of the jungle through Isabella Birds eyes. The sentence length in this passage is fairly long which allows a significant amount of detail to be noted.
This is important because a piece that is written in first person gives the reader the ability to relate to the material easier. David Attenborough, on the other hand, only uses punctuation marks where needed such as full stops and commas. The vocabulary level in this piece is fair and this would show that the piece is not written to entertain; instead its purpose is to inform. This could indicate that the piece lacks the excitement shown by Bird in a sense that language aspects are not used as much as in Birds piece.
From looking at all of these factors, we can see that Isabella Bird and David Attenborough see the jungle through very different perspectives. Bird seems to be amazed at the sheer size and extraordinary beauty, while Attenborough sees the jungle as a place of study, where the cycle of life never ends.