Maria+Braunz

Dennis Baron noticed bumper sticker on a truck that read, **“If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a soldier.”** ﻿ Dennis Baron argues that the English language does not need military force to protect it. He explains that English is the language of global capitalism, science, computer technology, and T-shirts. He therefore believes that military might plays no part in the equation of English as a world dominant language. He further explains that because English is the language of American schools and business immigrants are learning English by necessity and by choice. Logos is the main technique employed in this article. The author uses historical examples and quotes, as well as pointing out various modern day scenarios, to persuade the reader. Pathos really is not fully utilized in this piece; the author would have been helped by adding a little emotion or feeling. Ethos was also lacking, I have little proof about whom this person is or if he is telling the truth. Blogging is open to everyone and therefore the platform of the article does nothing to reassure me of the author’s credentials. I think the author misinterpreted the bumper sticker. He interprets it as ‘English language is the best, and military might is why so many people speak English.’ He then goes on to rant about English today and about how other countries are choosing to take our language. I think the bumper sticker simply pointed out that we should be grateful that soldiers defended us from being taken over by other countries. The author sees it from a global perspective; anyone anywhere reading that bumper sticker should be glad that English is his or her language, and they should attribute it to the soldiers. I see it from a patriotic American perspective; I am glad that other countries were thwarted in an attempt to take over the United States. I attribute my English speaking to the soldiers who protected my land and culture. In conclusion, Denis Baron wrote a mediocre article that was completely moot.

Maria ~ I like your critical thinking here and your ability to challenge the authority and the assumptions made by the author. You don't very clearly identify the author's purpose or audience, and I get the sense you didn't really look at the directions, but your thinking is fine and your summary is well done. CHECK ~ Prof. Wendt