Project: This is a rhetorical analysis assignment aimed at both practicing textual analysis and memo style. For this assignment, I chose to do a critique of Ralph Pieris' article “Bilingualism and Cultural Marginality” which attempts to connect the linguistic theory regarding identity and language known as "Filtration Theory" with the tumultuous history of Ceylon (modern day Sri Lanka). I chose to analyze this particular article because it is an excellent example of some really lovely academic writing gone awry. We were instructed to write this analysis in memo format while still maintaining the style of writing represented by our article/chosen field. I like what I was able to do with this piece and some of the problems I was able to extrapolate from Pieris' article. If I could change anything, I would like to add more in depth analyses on "Filtration Theory" itself as a reader not familiar with this idea may find himself or herself confused. However, this assignment's intended audience of linguistic academics is one that would likely have at least a cursory knowledge of the theory.

TO: Mr. Don Gammill

FROM: Kacey Harlan

DATE: July 13, 2014

SUBJECT: Artifact Analysis Assignment

Components

In this memo, I will be outlining the function of writing within the field of English academia. Because this field is broad, I have focused on academic writing as it appears in the profession of university level education. I am an English major with a concentration in Rhetoric and Writing so this is most likely the field I will be entering. In this memo, I chose a journal article by Ralph Pieris in which he argues for the connection between language and human identity. I selected this type of writing because it is fundamental to both rhetoric and the English field itself.

1) Analysis of Formal Academic Writing: English

The field of English requires an incredible amount of writing. Within the specific field of academia, this writing tends to be formal and usually serves the purpose of persuasion. Especially within the even narrower scope of rhetoric, the academic discourse can be used to both persuade and provide discussion. The audiences that are addressed in this field are primarily other academics in addition to students, and occasionally professionals from other disciplines that a document may correlate to.

In terms of genre, academic writing in the English field generally takes the form of academic articles. However, in my field I may also be required to write blogs, proposals, web content, and generally any other genre of writing because the field is writing itself. However, because the field is an academic, and therefore a educational and persuasive one, journal articles are the most important genre to consider. This information has been acquired through years of college courses, study of journals and journal articles, internships within the field, our textbook, and informational sources such as Purdue OWL.

2) Examination

In Ralph Pieris’ article “Bilingualism and Cultural Marginality”, he makes the argument that introducing a foreign language to another country in order to attempt to coerce the identity of its people to be more culturally similar the speakers of the new language is both impossible and inherently detrimental to the indigenous population. He specifically uses the idea of “Filtration Theory”, or the introducing of a new language via the indigenous country’s elite in hopes that

the new language with trickle down through the lower classes, in the case study of Ceylon to make his argument.

Purpose, Audience, & Context: The purpose of this document is to make the argument that language and identity are not mutually exclusive. The audience is meant to be other scholars, educators, and academics within the fields of both English and language as a whole. The context is that Pieris is commenting on the continuing discourse within the Language fields about the connection between identity, culture, and language. This article would most likely affect the academics within the field, students within it, and possibly some within the political sphere as the article deals with the issue of forced language change during colonization.Function & Persuasion: This article primarily functions to inform and to discuss. His goal is for the reader to consider after reading the piece what the implications of changing one’s written and spoken language, and how this would affect their perception of the world in accordance with their own identity. His use of case studies is what makes this article persuasive. He uses multiple instances across history ranging from the Roman colonization of Britain to his main case study and point—the colonization of Ceylon. This method gives his piece an incredible sense of logos and is an effective way to persuade the reader that forced adoption of a new language is detrimental to the culture of the new country.Professional Issues: Because this topic is highly contested within the field of language and language studies, Pieris attempts to provide some ethos by opening the article with some rhetoric from Spengler. However, his use of Spengler’s idea that “men are unilingual” (Pieris 328) creates more confusion than clarity as it is unclear for the reader if Pieris is agreeing or disagreeing. This issue makes for some slightly confusing reading for the remainder of the piece. Pieris does, on the other hand, make it quite clear through his use of primary source examples that he does at least agree with the concept that there is a relationship between one’s culture/identity and one’s mother tongue.Language and Style: Overall the tone of the piece is arid and formal. He is not particularly emphatic or emotive, nor does he provide a great deal of pathos in his writing. It is clear that Pieris is writing from a place of academic discourse and therefore wishing for both the style and tone to remain formal. He also uses jargon and technical terms that he explains systematically (i.e.: “Filtration Theory”). This is another indicator that the audience is primarily meant to be those within the academic field.

This document is an example of how writing within my field can be dense, technical, and persuasive. It also gives insight into how formal academic writing can be used to argue concepts that are abstract and without scientific data or statistics.

Pieris, Ralph. “Bilingualism and Cultural Marginality”. British Journal of Sociology 2.4 (1951): 328-39. JSTOR. Web. 10 July 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/588086

Conclusion

Within the field of academic English, writing is as a rhetorical tool. Regardless of context or category, all writing within my field of choice is meant to either make an argument or persuade in some fashion. In order to prepare for this type of writing, I need to continue to study rhetorical tools in my field and fine tune my writing to be both as perfect and unique as possible so that it is both persuasive and memorable as possible. While it is easy for writers in my field to simply follow the rigid structure set in place, this type of approach does not make for the most persuasive of writing. Figures like Linda Flower and Nancy Sommers have been able to make strides in the field because, while their form is clear and correct, there is a definitive voice in their pieces that Ralph Pieris is lacking in his. His overtly dense and formal style can lead to confusion and, frankly, boredom whilst attempting to decipher exactly what it is that he is arguing. I expect to have to prepare by continuing my education and practicing all of the nuance that writing in a formal academic setting will require.