¶ … companies Stress English Only on the Job," from Bridging the Gap, pages 373- 374, the authors take the position try to infer that company policies regarding "English only" are unfair. I agree with the article's inference and their point-of-view. In the first paragraph, the authors chose to relate a case study about Frances Arreola. I agree with the article's point-of-view and what it is inferring -- that English-only policies are unfair. While I assume that the case studies are factual, I noticed that the way it was presented suggested that the authors are inferring that the practice is not a good one. The article opens with the sentence: "When Frances Arreola read the memo announcing that employees should speak only English on the job, she was outraged. The word "outraged" gives me clues as to not only how Arreola feels, but how the authors feel about the policy. This also gives me clues as to the authors' points-of-view. If the authors were neutral or disagreed with Arreolas viewpoint they could have chosen a word such as "irritated" or "annoyed" instead of "outraged.

When I read the first paragraph, I too felt outraged. I felt this way, because I have seen how difficult it is for people to steer away from speaking their native languages. It was also obvious to me that the people within the companies who subscribed to the English-only rule, do not understand anything about how language works. In my observation, I have noticed incidents that validate the authors' point-of-view. The first is that people normally speak whatever language is most comfortable for both people involved in a conversation. For example, a woman who immigrated to the United States and had a child soon thereafter, will probably speak to her child in her native language. The mother and child will grow accustomed (comfortable)...

Even after the two are comfortable speaking English, they will continue to speak the foreign language to each other. I have also noticed that in group settings, where two such speakers are speaking English, that they are uncomfortable and will unconsciously throw in foreign phrases and words when addressing each other.
The authors have based their article on fact, in a way that attempts to educate the reader as to the negative side of the issue of "English-only policies." Facts that support their ideas come from indirect quotes from people they have spoken to, such as "employees who feel they have a right to speak in a more familiar language as long as it doesn't affect their work;" and direct quotes, such as "It [speaking another language] just feels comfortable." The authors have also presented facts, such as the rules by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. These facts caused me to react positively to the point that the authors try to make.

On the other hand, I reacted sympathetically to the opposing side that the authors presented. I have been in situations where people leave me out of a conversation, because they are speaking a different language. The authors describe an outsider feeling as if the Spanish-chatting ladies are "whispering behind our backs." I believe that this is a justified feeling and one that illustrates the other side's point-of-view.

A reacted positively to the idea that the authors presented as a solution -- sensitivity training. I believe, having looked at the situation from both sides, that imagining myself in someone else's shoes can be quite an eye-opening, rather, ear-opening experience.

Question 4B

There are three abstract concepts at play in John Rasmus "Letter from the Editor" in National Geographic's Adventure Magazine, found in the March 2003 edition -- purpose, fact and inference. The main purpose is to whet the appetite of the reader to make him or her want to read the story that follows in the same edition. To achieve his main purpose of making the reader want to read…