Re-writing a passage of Robinson Crusoe

The desire to voyage induced Robinson Crusoe to make a canoe. He was aware of almost all of the challenges that he might face. His extreme isolation was the first. Although he lacked resources, comparing himself with those people in the far remote areas making canoes without tools, made him more determined.  He knew about the tough job of making the canoe as well as the difficulty of launching it into the water. Despite the fact that he was well aware of all these problems, his concentrated intention to cross the sea made him inattentive about how to get a canoe from the land once it was made.

In his very first step for making the canoe, Crusoe found a big cedar tree. The tree was so big that he spent twenty days for cutting it down, fourteen days to chop off the head and branches, and another whole month to shape it like a canoe. He planned to make the whole canoe from that one single block of wood. For that purpose, he started to hewing that big trunk.  Although he knew the old technique of burning the wood to make a hole on it, he didn’t use that method. Crouse worked intensely with his mallet and chisel to dig the wood. Finally, after three months of extreme work, a great space was hollowed out in the trunk, enough to accommodate Crusoe with all his cargo. Following the canoe’s completion, Crusoe became very happy.

Crusoe’s happiness didn’t stay for long, because soon he had to tackle the distance between the canoe and water. Although it was only a hundred yards, it was uphill. He came out with a solution to dig the land in order to make an inclination on the surface so he could move the big canoe down towards the creek. It was a very tough job, but he started to do it. When he managed to do the diggings he found it still too high to move the canoe. That is why he measured the distance to water and this time decided to extend an artificial canal up to the canoe.  He started digging the land but he found it will take ten to twelve years for him to make the canal. In the end, in spite of his intention, he ended this attempt too and left the canoe.

Consequently, Crusoe found out that struggling with an exertion which is beyond our capacity is obvious foolishness. However, in the end, this unsuccessful experience provided him with contentment as he realised his life as a cumulative learning process. Thus, by applying the Holy Bible he achieved spirituality and further virtuous comprehension of his world which was completely different from what he used to think so far. This spiritual condition along with his extreme solitude led Crusoe to possess a unique point of view in which he learned he had nothing to do with the rest of the world.

"Love" the Figure of Speech

“Love is nutrient” is a rhetorical figure of speech. It asserts that love, which is a great feeling of affection, is the substance that provides nourishment for life. This figure is a metaphor, for love is not literally a substance. This metaphor means that love makes life grow, and emphasises its importance in the process of breeding.

This metaphor confirms Bennett and Royle’s assertion about our habituation to figurative language in a variety of ways. Firstly, love in its biological aspect is the very fundamental foundation of producing life. If love did not exist, certainly sexual intimacy could not happen either. In the absence of love as the main influential factor of procreation, the continuation of life would be in danger. Additionally, love supports life because it prevents wickedness and opposes evil. Likewise, love is not intelligible without life, and both are complementary to one another. So, the concept of love, to some extent fundamentally involves with life as always emerges together. This state of “togetherness” affects language and makes the figure of speech inevitable.
Because of the vast ground of resemblance between ideas and objects, metaphor and simile are widely used. Consequently, our thinking and speaking happen within a figurative language.

Same Passage for Various Audiences

Young Audience

Boy, you know, my first aeroplane ride was super exciting! I was in last week of primary school, and Father surprised me with a glassy envelope, my name on it. I opened it. It was a flight ticket from Sydney to Melbourne. Boy, I was super, super excited! I took the phone and called my friend, Jane. I had to. I mean I could not bear not to share such good news with my best friend. I told it right away; I am flying soon! Then, you know what, something terrible happened. Jane said a child must be at least 11 to fly solo. Damn it. It was disappointing. How could you not believe in Jane's talk on the flight? Her mother is a flight attendant and Jane has had a few flights already. I hurriedly told my father. “I have thought about it”, said Father. In fact, my aunt was accompanying me. Next week, I was watching the plane when it took off, flew up high above the clouds and then landed again. Boy, I was really on cloud nine.

Adult Audience

The memory of my first aeroplane ride is as vivid as it has happened yesterday. I was very keen on getting on the plane and not that much thought about the basics. When I was going through the security check, I was bewildered by the officer as asked me to take off my belt.  I was rocking a pair of loose pants, and as soon as I pulled the belt out, the pants slipped down. I hurriedly pulled it up but. I felt clumsy but it did not last long because a few minutes later I was walking through the jetway. I noticed on boarding pass that my seat was “11 A”. I found it easily. It was just behind the small window. I was watching out. Just when the plane was speeding on the runway, I felt its power and velocity, and then the takeoff. It was eleven years ago, and we landed after an hour, but all the moments are still apparent in my mind.

Differences

The major difference between these two texts is their angle of view. The first one is from a child’s point of view while the second is from an adult perspective. Their voices are different and even the language. The language of the child is more like a dialogue and a friendly, while the adult speaks about his or her own emotions and situation without direct addressing to the reader. Their focuses are also different.  The child focuses more on his own observations, but the adult expresses his feelings.

Political Correctness Against Freedom of Speech

The supporters of political correctness argue that our understanding of others is influenced by the language we use. Therefore, they encourage using non-discriminatory language to refer to different identities such as ethnicities, genders, sexual preferences, cultural backgrounds, and nationalities.

The widespread intention to avoid the harmful undertone in the language has created alternative terms for many concepts and groups of identities. For instance, the terms with prejudicial denotation such as negro and chairman are being replaced by African-American and chairperson respectively. The basic idea behind political correctness is to avoid using the derogatory terms in the public domain.

On the contrary, political correctness is being criticised by many others as an “attempt to artificially manipulate language use for a social goal” (Hale & Basides, 2013, p. 77). The opponents of political correctness argue that political correctness has nothing to do with the reality of life and it is merely a tool at the hands of those seeking power. They argue that using alternative terms only euphemise the harsh realities and manipulate the use of language. Therefore, political correctness has utilised in favour of power rather than in avoiding discrimination.

The ex-Prime Minister Tony Abbott is slammed by Fairfax Media contributor, David Campbell, criticising Abbott’s double standard towards freedom of speech. Abbott has announced that if people like the freedom of speech and don not like political correctness, they should vote no to same-sex marriage. Campbell emphasises on the vagueness of political correctness and objects that in another case Abbot had ignored the freedom of speech of Yassmin Abdel-Magied. This shows that political correctness can be easily utilised as a tool to manipulate language in political domain against freedom of speech.   

References:

Campbell, D. (September 11, 2017). Confusion reigns on what is politically correct and what isn't. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/confusion-reigns-on-what-is-politically-correct-and-what-isnt-20170911-gyf0cr.html

Hale, A. & Basides, H. (2013). The keys to academic English. Melbourne: Palgrave Macmillan.