Letter
English Language and Literature Task 1
[Written Task]
November 19, 2018
Word Count: 970
Candidate’s declaration: I confirm that this is my own work and is the final version. I have acknowledged the use of words, graphics, or ideas another person, whether written, oral or visual. I am aware of the world limit for this assignment.
Candidate’s Signature: _________________ Date:___________________
Rationale:
My written task is based on a report in the online Guardian newspaper, Saluton!’: the surprise return of Esperanto by Josh Salisbury, published on the 6th of December 2017. I was inspired to relate my WT1 to this extract as, through our lessons on language and mass communication, we learned how language could be used to persuade an audience to view issues from the speaker or the writer’s point of view. I chose to write a letter to the editor in response to this article because it allowed me to use biased language to convey a message. The topic under discussion (a universal language) also allowed me to consider elements of language and culture in my letter.
Words with strong connotations were used to present the writers bias. For example, the references to food shown obvious bias in favor of British food and in almost racist leaning towards the food of other nationalities. I used a variety of persuasive techniques to encourage the reader to agree with me, such as inclusive language which became more intense towards the end of the letter as the writer became more intense about her argument. Many rhetorical questions were used to lead the readers to the same conclusion as the writer’s (that a universal language would be destructive to the British way of life). I attempted to change my tone through the entire letter, sometimes even being sarcastic about the new language. In the second to last paragraph the superior tone is aimed to make the reader feel that the writer is far more knowledgeable and therefore must be right. The title of the letter “To speak or not to speak” also would make the reader that the writer is a well-educated person who probably knows better.
I have attempted to use a variety of forms of persuasive language that I have studied in my course and hoped that I have been successful in achieving the aim of my letter.
Word count: 326
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/06/saluton-the-surprise-return-of-esperanto
The Editor 19th November 2018
The Guardian
London
Dear Sir,
Esperanto – To speak or not to speak?
My apologies for the Shakespearian misquote, but my question is just as urgent as Hamlet’s was; Should Esperanto be a compulsory language taught in British schools?
This so-called wonder language was first created by the Polish doctor Zamenhof as an attempt to get opposing people to interact as peers during the Russian occupation of Poland in the late 1800’s. At this time Poland was a mix of Germans, Poles, Russians, and Jews, and the common language of Esperanto was supposed to promote peace by promoting dialogue. The language is experiencing a modern resurgence as the Esperanto Association of Britain endorse it as a possible universal second language. Would this be a sensible change?
Readers may see many benefits of this action. For those of us who travel extensively, it would be of major benefit as we could speak the same language in French-, Russian-, Spanish-, German- and English-speaking countries (this would involve practically the whole world!). Communication would be far easier and cross-cultural relationships would flourish without the barrier of language. It would be a tourist’s dream come true if he could be able to communicate with the locals of any tourist destination freely and easily. The connection created between tourist and local is always, in my opinion, warmer and sincerer when they speak a lingua franca, and the tourist gains the benefits of “insider information” about off the tourist track restaurants and attractions. Is this all Esperanto offers?
If Esperanto was more widely used, there are supposed benefits in the business arena. Businessmen across the globe would be able to communicate, plan, and draw up contracts in a common language. This would leave less scope for costly misinterpretation that can occur through errors in translation. There would also be no meaning lost in translation and, of course, money would be saved because there would be no need for translation and the related fees. Hence, over and above the social benefits of learning this new language, the proponents of this move see great financial benefits.
The very nature of the language and its origins make it attractive to any global citizen. It is “a symbol of intentional good will towards others”, according to Simone Davis, an Esperanto student. As such it would give great hope and a sense of unity in a world that is becoming more and more divided through the policies of prominent leaders such as Donald trump, and Kim Jung Un. The unifying character of Esperanto is a direct contrast to the wall that Trump proposes to divide the USA from Mexico – imagine if Esperanto was a universal language and the wall was built; the irony of a wall dividing people who speak a common language. Does this not remind you of the Berlin Wall? Esperanto could be a great tool for breaking down such barriers, couldn’t it?
On the other hand, we must consider the negative implications of a worldwide language. Some people consider this huge project “eccentric”, according to Davis. Our readers may agree. Can you imagine the time and costs that would be needed to implement such a plan? Drawing up a suitable syllabus and training teachers would be extremely pricey in terms of cash as well as education. Surely our country has better use for such money, like health care and housing? And surely our school curriculum is over extended as it is? How would we fit this language into our students’ courses? Would they regard it as a genuine language, seen that all nouns end with -o, all adjectives end in -a, and all adverbs end in -e. To many of us, this will sound like a childish language that lacks roots.
An even greater danger is that this language will go a long way towards a loss of culture and tradition. It is all well and good to say that Esperanto is a symbol of “intentional good will”, but I do believe that it will be far more destructive than we can even imagine. Because it is so easy to learn, many students may feel that their own mother tongue is too challenging and focus more on the new language. Many young people appreciate fashions and fads and may see this language as far more exciting than their own because it is new. What does this mean for their mother tongue? What impact will this have on our culture? It is bad enough that our good solid British cuisine has been tainted by Indian kebabs, Italian pastas, and Turkish shawarmas – must our language be equally tainted? With the loss of language that I know will happen, we will lose many of our great British traditions. Do we really want this?
Dear Mr. Editor and my fellow readers, we need to think carefully before we support such an idea. We need to weigh up the pros and cons because a decision to allow a foreign language completely into our school curriculum will have far reaching effects. Yes, it will help the tourist enjoy his journey a bit more, but how many of us truly can afford to travel abroad and will make use of this language? Is it only the richer citizen who will benefit? How many of us are involved in international business? Is it then only the business men who will benefit? These are questions that need to be considered carefully before we make a decision that will impact on our children and our nation for generations to come.
In answer to my opening question “To speak or not to speak?”, I would say definitely not! I invite all readers of your esteemed newspaper to make their objections known loudly and clearly.
Yours faithfully,
English for the English
Miss Emily Gilbert