DISCUSSION: The people trying to preserve their languages are ready to face the difficulty of transferring oral languages into written forms. And they’re willing to abandon oral forms in exchange for keeping their languages alive using written forms. It’s better than letting the languages die.
Their main goal seems to be to keep their languages alive. They’ll focus on what works, and what works for the community.
- Lines 32-36 contradict this. It isn’t always possible to directly correspond sounds to writing.
- CORRECT. The examples show flexibility. It’s clear that the needs of the community and overall effectiveness of the program take precedence over any ideological convictions.
- Think about what this says. It says that when you decide how to preserve your language, you should ignore the majority culture. That isn’t supported. Some academic research from the majority culture might be useful in deciding whether to use an oral or a written language, for example.
You could keep the language free of outside influence, while using outside influences to determine how to protect the language.
- Why would you hurt kids’ brains with hard concepts, right at the start? Lines 15-20 talk about a sequence of complexity, but the passage doesn’t say when to teach hard concepts.
- Lines 42-47 imply that in some cases we should never choose between two different versions of words.
Need help with RC? → Try the RC Mastery Seminar
Solve hard passages quickly