The Globalization of Language

     “Languages are dying at an unprecedented rate.  A language dies every 14 days,” Patricia Ryan sadly informed those in attendance at her 2010 TED Talk.  As a seasoned English teacher in the Arabian Gulf countries, Ryan has witnessed drastic cultural and linguistic changes in the Arabian countries of her students.  Ryan uses her experiences to show that even languages have fallen prey to the negative effects of globalization, as what was once a rich part of the diverse societies across the world is being lost as people strive to learn English.  Ryan worries that humanity is limiting its future opportunities for growth and knowledge by inadvertently forcing potentially great scientists and thinkers to master the English language before continuing their studies in fields such as mathematics and science at prestigious English-speaking universities.  Limiting foreign entry into such schools based significantly on the results of an English proficiency test is unfair in Ryan’s eyes; while she sees value in the English language uniting people across the world, she dislikes how it can conversely be used to prevent people from sharing everything they have to offer to society.

     Ryan uses personal experience in the form of many concise anecdotes to help illustrate her points to the audience, educated global citizens concerned with English’s dominance as the global language.  She begins with a story about a colleague of hers who, teaching English in an Arab school, took her students outside the classroom to teach them nature vocabulary and ended up learning more herself about the traditional Arab names and histories of said plants.  In addition, Ryan explains how even though her daughter, who went to school in England and in an Arab country, would have to translate everything she learned in math and science in her Arabic classroom into English, she was nevertheless the best math and science student in her English class.  Both stories exhibit that despite the barriers presented by different languages, every language has its own idiosyncrasies and unique take on aspects of life that compliment those found in other languages.  As the pool of languages from which they can pull words and ideas grows smaller and smaller, people risk losing diverse approaches to problem solving and facets of creativity unique to certain languages.

     Furthermore, Ryan’s talk was made compelling by the personal way in which she addressed her audience.  In using phrases such as “I know what you’re thinking,” or “You must be wondering…” Ryan invites the audience into her talk.  This seems to place the audience on the same level as Ryan, encouraging them to listen carefully and thoughtfully consider every word she says.  By approaching them as intellectual equals rather than people to speak down to, Ryan ensures her audience can get the most from the talk.

     Given Ryan’s discussion of the limits created by the globalization of language, it is especially important that the audience be capable of really connecting to Ryan’s words.  In that way, they are able to truly ponder the challenging question raised by Ryan: Is the world’s focus on English limiting great ideas in other languages?

The "Right" To Remain Silent

     As people across America struggle to recover from and understand the actions of brothers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, suspected terrorists behind the Boston Marathon bombings, one thing seems consistently to be on American minds: that justice be served to Dzhokar for his alleged acts of terrorism.  Consequently, the fact that Dzhokar will not hear his Miranda Rights before being interrogated by the FBI has gone largely unnoticed by many Americans.  In her Slate article entitled “Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?” Emily Bazelon, a Slate senior editor, hastens to inform the greater American public of the troublesome implications of this governmental trend of neglecting to initially announce the Miranda Rights in cases dealing with terrorism (which law enforcement agencies have the power to do because of the “public safety exception” to the Miranda Rights).

     In order to establish the scope of this governmental trend for the audience, Bazelon chronologically progresses through instances of American terrorism where the “public safety exception” was used, including that of Zacarias Moussaoui, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and Faisal Shahzad.  The examples chosen illustrate how the usage of the exception has increased in recent years, which in turn helps to further Bazelon’s main point: if law enforcement agencies are able to make their own rules now, what/who will/can stop them from doing so, in more dangerous ways, in the future?  In addition, the examples add credibility (ethos) to Bazelon and her claims.

     These claims are dramatically enhanced through Bazelon’s colloquial yet cautionary tone, which speaks directly to the audience in a friendly and direct way while at the same time clearly warning them of the implications of this abuse of governmental power (abuses the Miranda act initially aimed at reducing).  Casual, simple transitional phrases such as “Here’s the legal history,” and affable, informal authorial asides such as “Fine. Good, even—that gun could have put other people in danger” really allow Bazelon’s words to make tangible connections with the audience.  Furthermore, Bazelon’s habits of addressing the audience directly (“you”) and of simplifying explanations and diction so they are easily comprehendible helps the audience to feel as if they are on the same level as Bazelon.  This subsequently helps Bazelon’s points to resonate and really leave a strong impression on the audience.

     Americans will continue to wait in trepidation for more details about Dzhokhar, his brother, and the Boston Marathon bombing to surface.  After reading Bazelon’s article, one can only hope that this new information will not be gained at the expense of Dzhokhar’s basic American rights.

Angels and Ages: Darwin in Time

Passage: pages 168-196, the latter half of Chapter 4: Darwin in Time 

     Author Adam Gopnik’s persistence and meticulous attention to detail become especially evident in this section of Angels and Ages.  This section is a culmination of information Gopnik previously discussed about the circumstances that led Darwin to write and eventually publish On the Origin of Species.  In his discussions, Gopnik is able to evoke in the audience strong feelings of sorrow for Darwin because of the loss of a daughter, admiration of Darwin’s own attention to detail and observation, and awe of Darwin’s masterful understanding of not only the natural world but also of rhetoric and prose.  Although this section was incredibly dense and often tangential, Gopnik’s ability to bring together themes from both Darwin’s and Lincoln’s pasts lent a unique perspective to the writing, and allowed Gopnik to make some valuable insights about Darwin’s effect on the world. 

     A notable strategy used by Gopnik to help create a holistic sense of Darwin for the audience was his inclusion of countless excerpts and quotes from things Darwin wrote and said.  The snippets of private letters to his wife, Emma, help to create a sense of him as an affectionate and caring husband and father; sections of his published novels convey his patience, wisdom, and painstaking observation of the natural world; and segments of letters exchanged between Karl Marx and him help the reader to visualize Darwin in his own time, as his contemporary philosophers, economists, and scientists grappled with the Darwinian concept of natural selection.  These primary source documents subsequently add a level of credibility (ethos) to Gopnik’s research of Darwin’s life.

     Impressively, these inclusions flow well within Gopnik’s writing, a flow that is further enhanced by his usage of many “sound” devices.  For instance, Gopnik describes, “Dogmatic, difficult, and determined, he [Louis Agassiz] dominated American natural history…” (185).  The implementation of consonance in the repeated “duh” sounds, as well as some assonance in the repeated “ih” sounds, allow Gopnik’s diction to roll smoothly off the reader’s tongue.  Yet, this flow did occasionally feel disrupted when certain words seemed not to fit the diction of the other words around them.  For example, take Gopnik’s description of one of Darwin’s books, “Having studiously avoided comparisons for hundreds of pages packed with ornithological detail…” (Gopnik 183).  The word ornithological seems out of place in a sentence with simpler diction, of which the most complex word is “studiously.”  Overall, however, this was only a minor occurrence.

     Consequently, the majority of Angels and Ages flowed well, and nicely expanded but later brought together seemingly disparate points about the separate yet similar lives of Lincoln and Darwin.  Perfect for an audience that enjoys historical novels with a flair of mystery and focus on rhetoric, Angels and Ages is a book sure to offer an intriguing new look on the lives of some of society’s most respected icons.