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 authors 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 effectively display their claims in many similar and different ways.
Both David and Peter demonstrate their ideas on language preservation with 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 either history, examples, or 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 around 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” (Mühlhäusler 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 are 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” (Hough 74), while Peter asserts “language maintenance involves more than rescuing single languages or preserving texts” (Mühlhäusler 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” (Hough 73-74). On the other hand, Peter introduces and challenges pre-existing views, then, introduces his own views, all surrounded by his philosophy of “why linguists should pay attention to all languages of an area rather than concentrate on the grammar of individual languages” (Mühlhäusler 163). These different structural arrangements aid their pieces tremendously, helping the reader not only comprehend each aspect thoroughly, but help the authors convey their ideas in a matter that 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, and experts, challenging laws and linguistic practices while introducing his own, arguing about “the almost universal lack of attention to wider ecological questions” (Mühlhäusler 171) and how “it will require much unlearning on the part of those who have traditionally made decisions about language matters” (Mühlhäusler 178). David’s piece does the same, also targeting lawmakers, scholars, and experts, 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” (Hough 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 cultural preservation, even amidst a world trying to forget them. While using rhetorical appeals, canons, and conventions, they argue for this issue, stressing its urgency and raising awareness of this disregarded topic. While David’s approach is more statistic-oriented, it brings credibility to his statements, appealing to the readers’ logical reasoning and their understanding of his topic with real-world examples on the issue of losing language. It helps readers relate this to their own lives, and bring awareness to the languages around them that could be disappearing day by day. On the other hand, Peter’s philosophical approach gives birth to new worlds on the idea of language, showing how it isn’t as basic as it may seem. He makes readers think about the different layers that blanket each other, revolutionizing our current views on the issue of language preservation. Both authors also recognize their intended audience of lawmakers, scholars, and experts, further strengthening their arguments as they tailor their pieces to fit in their realms of expertise. Despite their differences in these areas, they both persuade their audiences to take action and have more appreciation for the languages and cultures around them. Peter and David remind us that as we navigate our increasingly homogenous world, we are the ones responsible for safeguarding and preserving our languages for future generations to come.