In my major paper 1, I was arguing that dialects needed to be studied because of the diversity they endowed to the society. I cited one sentence from Lera Boroitsky’s essay Lost in Translations stating that languages affect how people think. In order to show my understanding of this source, also to support my claim, I analyzed an example of the difference between Japanese people who spoke two dialects. “The Kansai Dialect has a higher tone than the Tokyo dialect, and it’s not as clear as the Tokyo dialect. Incomplete sentences also appear a lot in the Kansai Dialect. It contributes and also reflects the citizens of Kansai region’s characteristics. They are sloppier, more passionate, like to be casual and they talk louder.” (1) To the contrary, the ones who spoke Tokyo dialect have different characteristics. “The Tokyo dialect is very clear and gentle, includes mostly complete sentences and has a lower tone. As a result, citizens of Tokyo are mostly very gender and polite, they don’t talk loud and they pay much attention to details.” (1) I talked about the connection between the characteristics of the dialects and the personalities of those people who came from two areas. The difference analyzed by me demonstrates my understanding of the source and it strongly supports my claim. In this paper, I also cited Amy Tan’s essay mother Tongue. I considered the “broken English” spoke at her home as a dialect. “It doesn’t show the history of California where she lives, but it reflects the past of her family – her mom is an immigrant from China. The “dialect” also shapes her mind and makes her different from the other residents in California who born in English-speaking families.” Due to this source, we know Amy Tan and her mother are “diverse” people in this nation. Linking to the previous source, they think differently comparing to the common English-speaking people. All those two sources contribute proving my argument that dialects need to be studied. They have a “conversation” with each other and proved that this piece of writing is intertexual.
In major paper 2, I cited a piece of news talking about the transition from quarter system to a semester system in one university and the reasons the university did so. I cited directly from the text sometimes and then make some analyses. “In the news of Strength in Numbers, Mitch Smith talked about the reason that Otterbein University chooses to replace the quarter system by a semester calendar is ‘in hopes of encouraging transfers and increasing internship and study abroad opportunities’ (Smith)”. (4) Actually this source is like an interview because it contains the ideas of the faculties in the article. I cited another sentence from this piece of news. “The music professor at Otterbein University named Herbert Dregalla ‘worried that students lost out on internships or jobs because they were entering the workforce a month later than their peers at other colleges.’ (Smith)” (4) It’s also an evidence that proves my argument. This is a strategic way to use it in order to prove the point that the academic terms do have effects on students. Except for this source, I also did some library researches getting. I recontextualized some information from one academic source. “During the 1990s, the use of the semester system increased by 8% while the quarter system decreased by 9%. (Ashford 1)” This talks about the change of percentage during times and gives the reader an idea about the trend. Those two categories of sources also show that I’m “able to utilize multiple kinds of evidence gathered from various of sources in order to support of the write’s goals”. (Syllabus)
Finally, I want to talk about my use of MLA system of documenting sources. In my major paper 1, I mentioned the name of the source, the name of the author, and the page number in MLA format. “Amy Tan, the second generation of Chines immigrant, mentions the switch of her English in her Essay Mother Tongue. She spoke “broken English” with her mom and Standard English with the others. (712)”. (2)