Written
Text Analysis: Sample Essay
|
Hirofumi Kawakubo wrote this analysis of two print texts
concerning making English the official language of America and how that
jeopardizes bilingualism. His essay takes a critical stance and balances
summary and analysis by using specific examples from the articles. Hirofumi
gives us a solidly structured comparative analysis. |
Untitled
As everyone
agrees, English has been America’s common language since its foundation. In
recent years, however, English is in danger of losing its status as a national
language. As you would see in metropolises and cities in Border States, use
of non-English languages among immigrants has been increasingly common. Some
immigrants stick to their native language in everyday life and can’t speak
English well even after several years of immigration. Because the lack of
common language causes a lot of problems, some argue that the use of other
languages should be legally restrained. But other people oppose it by saying
that restraint will put non-English speaking people under pressure and the
lack of bilingual supports will jeopardize their lives in cases of emergency.
One of the problems is that neither the Constitution nor laws states English
as the official language. As a reaction, Proposition 63, which would legally
put priority on English above other languages, was proposed in California.
There have also been some movements in Congress toward constitutional amendment
to make English a national language.
Avila
and Rooney express their opinions about this issue from the opposite sides and
in different strategies. In his article “The Case for Bilingual Ballots” on San
Francisco Sunday Examiner and Chronicle, Avila argues that we should continue
and strengthen the bilingual support to non-English speaking immigrants. On the
other hand, in his article, “Liberty and Language for All” on the newspaper, Rooney
argues that we should make English an official language and stop bilingual
support for immigrants in public. As reading the two articles several times, I
felt an apparent difference of strength each article has on me. Avila’s
argument seems to be stronger than Rooney’s because Avila's article is more
based on the serious situation of immigrants.
In his article, Avila concentrates on
providing objective information regarding the Proposition 63 to Californians
who are going to vote. He first explains about an insufficient environment for
immigrants to learn English, giving a specific example of a lack of ESL
classes. As seen in the following sentence, “San Francisco Community College
Centers had about 3,000 names on waiting lists for English as a Second Language
(ESL) classes in Asian and Hispanic areas last year,”(Avila 345) his sentence
is very particular and contain concrete numbers. He makes his article
unquestionable by using those facts. Then he claims that the bilingual support
is necessary and not a waste of money. Although he rarely expresses his
personal opinion in this article, his own arguments are well understood from
the facts he gave. He wants to say that governments and society are to blame
for immigrants not to learn English because they have fault in not providing
sufficient environment to learn English. Because Avila's article was on the
local newspaper, his article is intended to be read by everyone who is concerned
with Proposition 63, mainly voters in California. He is an activist for
non-English speakers’ right. His use of objective information is very
successful to persuade readers, especially for people like him who don’t have
authority or power.
Avila appeals to our emotion by providing facts which are
opposite of our assumptions. For instance, we tend to think that immigrants
can’t speak English because they are lazy in learning English. But his use of
evidence about the lack of classes overthrows this thought, and the readers
realize that the governments and society are to blame, not immigrants
themselves. Next, he claims that the bilingual support in elections should be
continued because it is effective compared with its cost. Also in this
argument, he destroys the assumption that the bilingual support is expensive.
The strategy of overthrowing is dominant throughout his article. This is
especially apparent in the following two statements, “The motivation is there;
the ESL classes are not…” and “Some charge that bilingual ballots waste
taxpayers’ money. The numbers tell a different story.” (Avila 345) This
strategy gives stronger impression about the bad situation of immigrants, and
it works to sympathize with them.
Rooney
claims that English should be declared as an official language and bilingual
support should be abandoned. Although he supports his claim by explaining that
being not able to speak English is great disadvantage for immigrants themselves
and bilingual support hinder learning of English, his article overall seems to
be intended to justify the prejudice he has against immigrants. As he agrees at
first, he personally dislikes “people who have lived in this country for years
and can’t or don’t speak English.“ (Rooney 346) His scornful attitude toward
non-English speakers, especially to Spanish speakers, can be seen all over his
article. For example, he says, “we’re giving young Hispanics the impression
they’ll always be able to make out here,” (Rooney 347) if we support bilingual
language in public. This statement implies that he thinks non-English speakers
are less intelligent, and they won’t learn English unless they’re forced to do.
He says again at the end that, “I personally enjoy being intolerant once in a
while. I’m intolerant of people who come here to live and don’t want to learn
to speak English.” (Rooney 347) As the words “personally enjoy” imply, his
article is motivated from his personal feelings. Therefore his argument is
weak, especially who have different values from him.
It’s
clear that Rooney’s article has not been written for non-English speakers on
contrary that Avila’s article is for every kind of people. He seems to divide
Americans into two groups, the traditional English-speaking citizens, mostly
whites, and new non-English speaking immigrants. This can be inferred from the
following sentence, “There’s a growing division in this country between the
great number of Spanish-speaking people who’ve come here in the last 10 years
and the rest of us.” (Rooney 347) He is talking to “the rest of us” which
includes himself. This article’s purpose is just to make sure and strengthen
their feeling against the immigrants. His arguments are appreciable only in
their group and don’t bear universal ideas that can be supported by all people.
Not only
Avila and Rooney are in the opposite sides on the issue of bilingual support,
their status in the social hierarchy is also quite contrastive. While Avila is
a grass-roots activist who supports socially weak people, Rooney is a famous
personality on nation-wide television whose opinion can have an influence on
entire States. This difference appears in their style of texts. In his text,
Rooney is overconfident in his authority and arrogant to the people different
from him. On the other hand, Avila is sincere and modest in his way to persuade
the readers; he tried to provide self-decision making materials to vote for or
against Proposition 63. When persuading readers, especially in such a specific
issue of making English official language, it’s more persuasive to argue with
concrete facts like Avila did than just to impose one’s opinion.
Works Cited
Avila, Joaquin G. “The Case for
Bilingual Ballots.” Robinson 345-46.
Robinson, William S., ed. English
100 Custom Reader. New York, Heinle & Heinle,1998.
Rooney, Andy. “Liberty and
Language for All.” Robinson 346-37.