A Reaction to "Lost in Translation" (An excerpt from Goshgarian's "Exploring Language," not the movie.

This reading was certainly at a higher level than any of the previous ones. I understood every word of the text except one - recalcitrant. I had a general idea for what it meant based on how it was used in the second paragraph, but after looking it up I learned that the exact definition is: 1. obstinately defiant of authority or restraint; and 2. difficult to manage or operate; not responsive to treatment. This is essentially what I figured it meant given the context, but it's nice to be sure.

I do find the work that the linguists in the piece were doing. I think it is important to document and record languages that are going extinct so they can be preserved. As the reading points out, the cultural history of tribes and cultures is preserved in their language and therefore a language must be preserved in order to best preserve a culture.

What I do disagree with is imploring vast amounts of resources (money, time, labor) in order to keep a language from going extinct. The bias of the author was fairly apparent - she and the linguists that she focused on felt that it was important to keep languages alive, even at high costs. Though I believe that this is a noble stance, I don't think that it is the best use of funds and resources that could be devoted to other causes. Yes, it is a shame that these languages are going extinct, but linguist evolution is going to be unavoidable with the ever increasing globalization of cultures and economies. She added the stance of other linguists who see the death of a language as a Darwinian process, and I agree with this. As the various cultures of the world become more and more interconnected, an increased universality of many different cultural mainstays, including language, will take place.

I also found the influence of Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union on the demise of Chuylim to be rather interesting. Though I can see reasons for a public education, prohibiting Chuylim and other Siberian children from speaking their native tongue was too harsh and certainly reflects the Soviet Union's political sentiments. The village consolidation program was also morally wrong, but unfortunately the past cannot be changed and, barring any unforseen influx of funds and resources, the Chuylim language appears to be nearing its end.

Defining Critical Reading

I believe that being a critical reader means being an active, rather than a passive reader. You don't just read something on "autopilot," you actually think about and agree or disagree with what you are reading.

Reading and thinking critically are important in developing self-identity and personal views. Reading and thinking this way is also important when being presented with information in the many different forms that exist today. It is important to be able to distinguish between important and pointless information, as well as truthful and biased information.

The three techniques that I found to be most important in the writing were questioning, analyzing, and summarizing what you read. I believe that it is important to question and not blindly believe what you are writing. I also believe that when writing you should be analyzing the author's intentions, and how information is presented. Summarizing is incredibly important in understanding the main point of a piece of writing (or any other media); one has to be able to discern the main ideas of a piece and narrow them down.

I have used all of these in the past, and I often employ all of them while reading just about everything, without even really being conscious of it.

When I read I will usually look up similar information to what is being presented in the writing. I may see one word or topic in a piece of writing and do some quick research about it (wikipedia) and come back to it.