Entry Fünf - English Gobalization

As Mauro E. Mujica stated in Why the U.S. Need an Official Language, “English is the language of business, higher education, diplomacy, aviation, the Internet, science, popular music, entertainment, and international travel.” If one was to think about it, this statement is total truth; it is safe to say being born into a country without a prevailing use of the English language would put that child at a disadvantage in terms of global immersion. As Mujica stated almost everything in the world is dominated by English, I think this is due to the fact that some of the world’s largest and most powerful markets in the world are English based.

I think the reason why mostly everything is in English is because whatever the topic was (i.e. the Internet or aviation) it became popular in English and just expanded from there.  Why change something that works? It’s hard to imagine, for me, if the bulk of the music or movie industry was in a different language, it would not be as big in my life as it is now. I am very fortunate to be in an English speaking country. I like my TV and movies coming out without the need for subtitles and listening to music I can understand.

Like almost anyone will say, English it the language to know to make it in the world, unless you plan to stay on the local level for your entire life. I don’t know how many things work for anyone who doesn’t grow up with English, but I couldn’t imagine my life without my usual internet sites or video games. Again I know that I am fortunate to be an English speaking native, and have already been given a decent advantage over other people around the world that either don’t know English or are not yet masters of the language.

Although most of the global economy is constantly evolving, I don’t see it expanding too much further in the terms of language. I think where the world is at works for us all, although personally I feel we should encourage a bit more incorporation of other languages. Having a universal language for the world in terms of all these subjects would be a great way to “unite” us, but would it ultimately destroy our language diversity?  I think the English language isn’t going to spread much more anytime soon. English is the “language of the world” just like that.

Entry Vier - "Helping Hand"

For me the most author/essay in chapter two was "Writing for an Audience" by Linda Flower. Although I already know that thinking about your audience and keeping them in mind throughout the paper is a must, but Flower brought up some very interesting points that I've never thought about. For example, where you live can give one person a different view of a lake or beach, Flower uses a lake to show us this example. She states that even though that generally people see a lake as a sunny place to swim and ski, she thinks of lakes as "cloudy skies, long rainy days, and feeling generally cold and damp." This was a great visualization for me, I've never really thought about how some people might view something differently than the "norm." It made me realize that, should the need arise to write about a setting, I should give a better description so that my view of the place comes through and helps the point I'm trying to make to the reader.

Before Flower went into the differences between writer and reading she explained that one should take the time to actually examine the planned audience. I know that writing is "about" the audience but I can honestly say that I don't think I've ever truly taken the time to think about the expected audience and plan for what they already may or may not know, their attitude toward the topic or what the reader may need from the work. With this being pointed out to me, I feel that I can/should take the time to truly examine who I am writing for and why, so that my writing can can a solid turn for the better.

Although she does not spend much time talking about the knowledge of the audience, I think it is one of the biggest things we should look at, if we do not consider what our readers may or may not already know, we could cause problems when trying to discuss our topic to the audience. Flower's questions, "What does your reader need to know?" and "Does your reader have enough background knowledge to really understand you?" are great to ask ourselves when beginning to write almost anything. Even though this is probably common knowledge, I think we cannot emphasize taking audience knowledge into account enough.

Overall I think Flower does an excellent job letting us know that we need/should really examine our audience to the fullest; to make sure we know how the audience will react to and absorb the information you are relaying. Again, I feel this article helped me the most because it will allow me to prepare better and allow the things I write to be better than they are today.

Entry Drei - Dear Mr. Editor

Dear Mr. Editor,

I have written this letter to voice my opinion about Amir Taheri's "The Semantics of Murder." First of all thank you for including it in your publication, I personally think it is a very interesting topic to explore, wondering how the people with ties to the Muslim world view these suicide bombers. As Taheri points out, we can see that the leaders of the Muslim community voice their opinions for suicide bombings, and even encourage it their children. I find it fascinating that by doing so, a Muslim is breaking one of the five unforgivable sins, which is to commit suicide. It's amazing how someone so young can be brainwashed into committing acts of terrorism for their religion, even though it involves going against the religion to do so.


Taheri explains that the organizations that fuel these bombing use other words in their language to justify going against unforgivable sins. Because they cannot call themselves martyrs, they describe themselves as "martyr-like," once again proving to me that if they don't see themselves as religious heroes, the people don't either. He continues to point out that these terrorists try to coin different terms of themselves without tying it to their religion if they can.

It seems that the leaders are so obsessed with destroying Israel, they would condemn their own followers. Taheri makes an interesting point here, even though these leaders appear to condone these acts of terrorism they always make sure it is someone else's child. This to me proves that they know that these acts of terror oppose their religion, so they make sure to doom the soul of a person who is not a relative.

When I review the facts I can't see anything but evil deeds, these leaders are killing their own while they sleep nice and cozy at night. I personally cannot see how anyone, even a member of the Muslim community, can call the suicide bombers anything other than terrorists. Taheri asks at the beginning of this article, are the bombers seen as martyrs to their people? I feel that the answer should be no. I think Taheri does an excellent job pointing out these organizations don't speak for the entirety of Muslims, they are simply people who wish to destroy everything that they dislike or hate.

Again thank you for including this in your publication, I feel it spreads some light on the mostly unknown world of Muslims and its connection to terrorism.

Sincerely,
Austin Kaylor