Essay #2 Draft

The Difficulties of Preserving One’s Language and Culture in a Multicultural World

Although not widely preached, the difficulties of preserving one’s language and culture in a multicultural world remain vigilant. This may even be attacking the very institutions our households are brought up upon, proving to be a danger against the things we identify ourselves as, our cultures. Without this, we’ll be losing a vital part of ourselves, and never even allow it to exist in the generations to come. In this essay, I will be describing the relationship between Peter Mühlhäusler’s “Preserving Languages or Language Ecologies? A Top-down Approach to Language Survival,” and David A. Hough’s “How SIT Students Help to Preserve an Endangered Language.” Both Peter and David use rhetorical appeals, canons, and conventions to boast their claims on the pressing issue of preserving language in the modern world. With their uses of logos, straightforward and coherent structures, and styles/tones, they are able to effectively display their claims in many similar and different ways.

Both David and Peter demonstrate their ideas on language preservation with the use of logos, revealing the facts behind language, and why it has come to be an issue all should know of. With logos, both authors aim to back up their reasons with history, examples, and famous philosophers to bolster their arguments. While they both use this same appeal, their focuses differ. David focuses on the landscape of language, their relationships with one another, and where they are used, while Peter centers on the broader range of preservation of culture, emphasizing the need for cultural diversity through the continual use of their languages, as “such diversity is the basis of language regeneration” (Peter 17). David’s statistics are focused on empirical data and its connection to the Kosraean language, being more technical than Peter’s, in which his logos is infused with philosophy and reflection, bringing a different view to the topic of language that we may have never heard of. Converging in depth as well, David’s specific use of explanations and examples counters Peter’s more broadened and generalized view of language’s importance, as he aims for a “greater social consciousness among Japanese students as well as help to preserve and enrich a Micronesian language and culture” (David 74), while Peter asserts “language maintenance involves more than rescuing single languages or preserving texts” (Peter 163). Despite this, both authors’ differences fit perfectly with their choice of structures, complementing and enhancing their pieces further.

Additionally, David and Peter have distinct structure approaches differentiating their pieces. Similarly, both authors fit within the realm of ordinary essays, having an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion, backing up their findings or ideas with evidence. They introduce their topic, defining it, and stating their motivation for their projects. Both pieces flow smoothly and have a coherent structure, making it easy for the reader to follow. Where they differ is their content, in which David transitions into the specificity of his essay, the Kosraean language. Finally, he introduces projects that are being implemented to help preserve and expand the use of this language, “collaborative work being done between the Kosrae State Department of Education in the Federates States of Micronesia (FSM) and students and faculty at Shonan Institute of Technology” (David 73-74). On the other hand, Peter introduces and challenges pre-existing views, then, introduces his own views, all surrounded in his philosophy of “why linguists should pay attention to all languages of an area rather than concentrate on the grammar of individual languages” (Peter 163). These different structural arrangements aid their pieces tremendously, helping the reader not only comprehend each aspect thoroughly, but helping the authors convey their ideas in a matter which makes them a focal point. This leaves readers reflecting on these ideas beyond the conclusions of these pieces.

Lastly, David and Peter approach language and culture preservation with styles and tones conformed to their appropriate audiences. Overall, both authors adopt a serious and academic tone, creating an urgency for action on this issue. Peter’s piece aims directly at lawmakers, scholars, or experts, challenging laws and linguistic practices while introducing his own, arguing about “the almost universal lack of attention to wider ecological questions” (Peter 171) and how “it will require much unlearning on the part of those who have traditionally made decisions about language matters” (Peter 178). David’s piece does the same, but unlike Peter, he leaves room for casual readers with his simple, easy-to-understand language. He aims to enlighten his audience, as initially, he didn’t know “how fragile the languages and cultures of these people really were” (David 66). While Peter’s style directly reaches for those involved in language preservation efforts, David speaks on his experiences with involving himself in this issue, aiming to enlighten and inform readers. With this, Peter relies on the help of other linguists and scholar writers, while David relies on his findings and history to support his ideas. Despite having differences in both style and tones, both authors effectively relay the urgency needed on the issue of language preservation in modern times. 

In conclusion, both Peter Mühlhäusler and David A. Hough emphasize the importance of language and culture preservation, even amidst a world trying to forget them. While using rhetorical appeals, canons, and conventions, they argue for this topic, stressing its urgency and raising awareness of this disregarded topic. Despite their differences in these areas, they both make strong claims and introduce unique ideas, persuading people to take action and have more appreciation for the languages and cultures around them.