Blog Post III: The Merit of Close Reading

I am very excited to begin researching for my thesis topic (the potential role of museums and archives in language preservation). I have looked up information these past few years on endangered languages and their revitalization efforts out of personal curiosity and for various projects. But, I look forward to continuing this research on a much deeper level and with the close reading skills emphasized in Research Methods.This semester, as we approach our readings with specific questions (what is the research question? methodologies? evidence? etc), I have been more cognizant of the methods I was already utilizing when conducting close readings. Throughout the years of being in school, I have been trained to search for an author’s argument or thesis, his/her main supporting points, and conclusion. Therefore, it is neat to now be more aware or mindful of the physical setup of a paper in addition to the content. For instance, it is interesting to compare the structures of all the articles we read, and how the structure helps convey an author’s argument, or muddles it. For Museum Studies in particular, the structure seems to be more open-ended compared to the strict layout of a biology lab report, for example. Overall, I’ve enjoyed using the strategies I’ve already learned in combination with new ones and looking at how a reading’s content and layout complement each other to serve an author’s purpose.

The two journal articles I read related to language preservation and endangered languages had both similar and different structures. The first is titled, "Endangered Languages, Endangered Knowledge" by Luisa Maffi. Based on the title, I figured the article would delve into the consequences of losing languages with specific case studies. Maffi did emphasize the risks of losing languages, but she spoke about it in broader terms, relating linguistic diversity to biodiversity. She established an analogy between "conservation linguistics" and "conservation biology" [1] to convey to readers the importance of an interdisciplinary approach. The article was written in 2002, shortly after the emergence of language preservation as a priority in the 1990s, so Maffi considers how the field could grow to be most successful. Similarly, in "Language Revitalization and Language Pedagogy: New Teaching and Learning Strategies," Leanne Hinton takes a compare and contrast approach. She defines four types of languages: foreign, majority, heritage, and endangered languages. She outlines the primary goals of their teaching programs, learner's motives, and influence on language to demonstrate how the curricula and teaching methods for majority languages (such as Spanish or English) cannot be easily applied to endangered languages. In the case of endangered languages, there are challenges like lack of fluent teachers and lack of resources in small communities. Therefore, "communities, families and individuals are creating new and unique strategies all the time to bring their endangered languages back into use" [2]. One example is Twf (as referred to by Hinton), an organization in Wales promoting family and parent programs with the aim of introducing Welsh into the home. Hinton's article structure is different from Maffi in that it has clearer transitions with headings and subheadings, and a separate abstract, introduction, body, and conclusion.

Here is a screenshot from the Welsh program discussed by Hinton. They highlight their long-term goal of one million Welsh speakers by 2050. 

Notes:
[1] Luisa Maffi, “Endangered languages, endangered knowledge,” International Social Science Journal, Vol. 54, No. 173 (2002): page 387. Wiley Online Library.
[2] Leanne Hinton, “Language revitalization and language pedagogy: new teaching and learning strategies,” Language and Education, Vol. 25, No. 4 (2011): page 317. EBSCOhost.