Short Text 3.

2
4 questions from A Writer's Reference:
David Brooks:
1. What is the author's purpose: To inform? To persuade? To call to action?
The author's purpose for this text is to inform, to persuade and call the audience to action.
Brooks informs the audience of how today, as a society, people do not care about diversity, although we
say that we do. He explains what is meant by us not caring about diversity and by providing examples
that support his argument. The examples he provides show systems or networks that are used to
determine the amount of diversity we have and how it is broken up by area. Also, the audience is
informed that they group together by their similarities and tend to shy away from groups that are
different which creates less diverse areas. Although this is true, our country is still considered diverse
due to the many different cultures present, but these cultures do not necessarily promote diversity. The
author also calls for action to be taken. Brooks suggests ways in which people can start making changes
in their own lives to create cultural diversity for themselves. He states was in which we can all create
diversity, therefore, he is trying to persuade people to take action. The persuasion and action are
intertwined within this text. Wording is the key to how the certain parts come across as persuasion.
2. Who is the audience? How does the author appeal to the audience?
There is more than one audience in this text; they are: the society of our country and the people
within their own small communities. One of the ways he addresses the audiences is by including
himself within them by saying we and not you; this seems like a much more personal way of going
about providing information and trying to get people to act on something. It is much more encouraging
to hear encouragement for change come from a peer rather than someone that you feel that you cannot
relate to. This is another tactic that is used. By addressing whole communities and today's society it is
much easier for people to relate to, once again. Brooks addresses people by their specific communities
and appeals to them by talking about their common likes and dislikes, while still telling them that they
are segregating themselves which is a negative connotation. He also appeals to them by saying that
there is no way that people are just going to magically change and have more cultural diversity in their
communities and institutions. Instead he says that there is a diverse life and not diverse institutions
which puts people at ease because he states that there is no point in trying to force diversity upon
people. He only encourages and suggests that people change, but does not force them.
3. Does the text contain words, statements, or phrases that you don't understand? If so, what
reference materials do you need to consult?
There was only one word that I did not understand in this text. The word was foibles that was
presented in the form of a quote about the author himself. I attempted to use the context of the
sentence within the paragraph to help me and then I tried to just guess, but that was not really any help.
What I needed to consult was a dictionary; it was as simple as looking up the word. I found that the
meaning of foibles was a minor weakness or eccentricity within someone's character.
4. What did you notice on a second or third reading that you didn't notice earlier?

I didn't really notice the author's inclusion of himself into the text and how he was a part of the
society that was being criticized. I found that subtly to be very interesting. It made the author
relate to me and other people more easily and made the text less official,in a sense, but not in a
negative way. I also noticed that although the text is about cultural diversity that race and
ethnicity are brought into play quite a bit. The first time I read it I thought there was only a brief
section on these aspects, but in reality they carried over into other parts of the text. That was a
nice relation in the text that created some consistency.

Amy Tan:
1. What is the author's purpose: To inform? To persuade? To call to action?
The author's purpose for this text is to inform. It is to inform about her story and her childhood
of being bilingual and and speaking more than one language and understanding many different types of
English. There is also the aspect of informing people of how judgmental and rude they are to those who
aren't like them when they talk and how they too understand many versions of English. She explains
that schooling has something to do with school and how people are trained in school to think and speak
a certain way which then influences them in everyday life. So overall, the text is simply to inform the
reader, but it includes many aspects other than those of just her own personal life; it includes aspects of
everyone's lives and how we are all effected by language and such.
2. Who is the audience? How does the author appeal to the audience?
The audience of this text seems both specific and broad depending upon which section you are
in. The main audience of the text is people who are bilingual and speak or understand a difference
language at home or in their personal lives as compared to out in the world on a more professional
level. There is also the very specific audience of those who are bilingual and at the same times are
writers. Lastly, there is the broad group of pretty much everyone, be it those who are bilingual, those
who are judging those whose language skills aren't the same level as theirs. This broad group is being
criticized because of their judging of those and how they speak and their treatment of these people, but
they are also appealed to in some manner. They are appealed to in a small sense because of the author's
person experience with learning, this appeals to people because they can relate if they learn differently
than what is expected. Also, they are appealed to by the fact that she too had been on the other end by
judging someone, especially her mother, about the way she speaks. This allows people again to
understand that it's not always consciously done. The main audience is appealed to through the telling
of the author's personal story and the situations that she was put in, which are able to be understood
easily by those who are in the same or similar positions. The specific group is addressed separately,
which is an appeal in its own way. They are being singled out and given special treatment, in a way,
therefore there is a large appeal for that audience.
3. What evidence does the author provide to support the thesis?
The whole point of the text is to inform people of the struggles that she faced as a bilingual
child who spoke two languages and had more than one way of speaking to people and how people
judge those and their speaking both consciously and subconsciously. This is shown through examples
of her childhood. She talks of the times she had to call people for her mother and translate her
mother's broken English into something more professional in order to be taken seriously. Also she
tells of her challenges of learning in school because the learning was geared a certain way that she
could not understand due to the way her home life was and how she thought. She tells of how she was

judged for the way her mother spoke as well as her mother being judged and not taken seriously and
treated poorly because or her speak and how she judged her own mother because of how society had
taught her to think. Her school experiences and personal experiences show that society gears people to
judge anyone that does not speak they way they were taught in school which is quite sad.
4. Has the author revealed a fact or made a point that counters you assumptions? Is anything
surprising?
There were a few times in which I was surprised by the text and the author's story. Mostly, I was
surprised to here how her mother was treated due to the way she spoke. I was unaware that people
would treat others so poorly just because of how they talk. I understood that there was racism based off
ethnicity, but I didn't think people would be so mean because of speech that is not based off of the
meaning of the words. I was also surprised to read that other people were judging her based off of how
her mother was speaking not even on how she was speaking herself. I don't understand why someone
would be so critical of someone that is not connected to them technically. Again, on the same lines, I
was a bit surprised to learn that she struggled with learning and that it was affected by the speech and
English that she grew up with, but when I thought about it more it made quite a bit of sense.

Critical Thinking Question at the end of text:

Brooks:
What was your initial reaction to Brook's so-called admission? What is the effect of admitting
something that many of his readers will instinctually reject? How is your opinion affected by
his evidence? How well has he supported this assertion by the end of the essay?

I thought his admission was almost redundant, because if the information he admitted was
supposedly obvious why would he have to tell everyone. On the other hand, he may have said it
just to reinforce what people already know to be true. So, initially I was not at all surprised I
merely kept reading because it is just another fact that I was already aware of. I think that
admitting something that people will reject is kind of a big deal. He is obviously trying to make
a point and stating that point right off the bat is the best way to go about it. It could be a tactic
that he used in order to get those people who want to change or would be willing to change
would stay and read instead of trying to talk to people who don't care. Personally, my opinion
was supported by his evidence. He shows that people separate themselves into groups they
know and are comfortable with and I knew that because I too do the same thing, but I also know
that you cannot force people into changing no matter how hard you try and Brooks points this
out in the text. I feel that it would be good for more cultural diversity and he definitely made me
think of traveling and such to become more culturally diverse and it made me feel that others
should feel that way too. He seems to have supported his assertion very well by the end of the
essay. He gave a number of examples of systems, etc. that show how people separate
themselves geographically and in which manner they do so and who these people are within
each group. I see those things as effective forms.

Amy Tan:
In paragraph two, Tan mentions all the englishes she grew up with. What were those
englishes? What is odd about that term? How does the oddity of the word reinforce the point
of her essay?

 Tan's englishes were the English she spoke with her mother which was very simple; the
English her mother used which was broken; her translation of her mother's Chinese; her
mother's translation of Chinese; the English she used with her husband and the English she used
in her professional settings. What is odd about the term englishes is that the word itself isn't
technically a real word and is spelled wrong. This word reinforces the point of the essay
because everyone has more than one way of speaking and that although there is a technical was
of doing things according to the official English language, there is not necessarily a technical
way for everyone and how they choose to speak. There are many different forms of speech and
I personally know that I don't talk the same or write the same in all situations because it
wouldn't be appropriate, but to some people it is okay and acceptable. So, it really shouldn't
matter whether the word is spelled correctly because people shouldn't judge based just on minor
aspects. The point is that you can still read the word and know what it means or is supposed to
mean so it's spelling has no affect, just like the way people speak should have no affect on
people and how they are treated.

Metacognitive Sentences:
David Brooks:

The time went quickly because I was very interested in what the other had to say in regards to
cultural diversity and how we continue to segregate ourselves in such a diverse country and
why.
A word I didn't know was foibles. I think thought that it meant a characteristic because of the
context of the word in the sentence and quote.

Amy Tan:

I was surprised when the author said she was judged based on how her mother spoke because
her mother is not speaking for her so I don't see why it would matter.
I started to think about my own types of English because she says that she has many and it
switches depending on who she is with and Wwhat situation she is and it made me wonder if I
also change when I am in certain situations.

Critical Thinking Questions:

David Brooks:

Why do people just give up instead of fighting for integration among their community and
society?

Amy Tan:

We change our manner of speaking depending on the situation and person, is this a reflection of
who we favour or possibly due to being comfortable or uncomfortable?