Paper 1 - Textual analysis (SL) [Correction]

The text is an article published in The observer. Located in a contemporary context where the idea of a globalized world is present in all forms. With this context in mind the author states a clear criticism towards British people and their “failure to speak foreign languages”, as is written in the title article; with this is clear that the authors intended audience, more than being just the “The Observer” readers is addressing British people.

The text starts with an introduction, in short words is a context to what the text is going to be about an relate with. This present a starting point to the reader and writer, because in the title the writer makes use of the possessive adjective “our”, with this he is creating a common relationship, directly related with a sense of belonging, with the audience, they are British; therefore part of the same group.

This idea of being part of the same group gives the author the opportunity to criticize their “failure to speak foreign languages”, more over he is using the ideas of “shame” and “It's not civilised”, these words convey a powerful meaning to the audience, because it's appealing to their emotions, and more to their sense of belonging to the British community, this is also referring to the fact hat England is well known for being an old but refined and cult country, so being “not civilised” make an impact to the reader.

The second paragraph, as well as the title, is make an allusion to this civilised (“gentleman” Stereotype of British people) aspect of them, by saying “what greater disrespect can there be than no speaking to others in their languages?... How can you hope to understand others while requiring them to speak to you in their English” a powerful criticism is made, because they don't speak other languages the author is implying that the others that speak their language (English) are more respectful and civilised than they are.

The next paragraph and the fifth one make a direct reference to picture presented in the text, because it talks about the “loss of possibility” when you don't know languages. In the picture the fish in the little bowl would be the British or the people that only know one language, while the others (on the big tank) are different species of fish coexisting together making an allusion to the idea that you can mix and get more of other group of individuals if you know more languages. In the text this is presented as “you are not making enough of your individual potential if you allow yourself to be enclosed by one language”, again, the writer is making a critic, now more in an inner personal level, to just staying in one language.

In sixth paragraph the author uses logos to add credibility to his argumentation as well as irony. It says that English as a first language is only spoken by 7% of the world while 75% don't speak English. These numbers, as they are presented make an impact on the reader. The 7% (instead of 93%) is used to make first language English users feel insignificant in comparison to the rest of the world, the same is true for the 75%. With this the author is trying to create consciousness about the limitations of staying, only, with the English language.

Last but not least in the text the text the first lines of the seventh paragraph, are making an allusion to the historical importance of language, since it is one “of the oldest, deepest, uncanniest, most thoughtful human inventions”, with this the criticism the author is making gets empower, because avoiding learning languages would be avoiding one of the most basic human inventions.

As it could be seen this article shows a vivid criticism to the lack of interest and failure to speak foreign languages, making an allusion to the “not civilised” and ”not gentleman” ideas. Is important to discuss this topics of learning languages, because now days is a very important an essential way to communicate with each other, specially in our globalize XXI century society.