In the article “Language as a Source of Otherness” by Natalie Victoria Wilmot, Mary Vigier, and Kristina Humonen, the authors argue that language is the main cause for othering. One of the key points of their article is that language causes power structures which lead to the majority gaining a sense or superiority. They write, “It is through language that power structures, multiple meanings and ideologies are created, challenged, reinforced and negotiated,” (Natalie Victoria Wilmot, Mary Vigier, and Kristina Humonen,) This shows that othering is caused through the misuse of rhetoric and that we should use language to create a sense of belonging instead of othering.
They would agree with my approach to the thesis because language is what creates the idea that there is the 'other' which can be prevented if we used language in order to create inclusion. the authors write, "Firstly, it is through language that we socially
construct the Other and create (in)visible social boundaries." (Natalie Victoria Wilmot, Mary Vigier, and Kristina Humonen,) Which shows that if language creates the 'other' it can also be used to prevent the creation of it.
Paraphrase 1, Language is one of the cornerstones of creating the image of the “other”
Paraphrase 2, Just because language is what shapes the idea of the “other” doesn’t mean that language is only used to others, it should be used to uplift and include.
The intended audience for this source is people who want to be more educated on othering and the Us v. Them topic.
The goal for this source is to show readers that language is one of the main factors of othering and that we should use language to include instead of separate each other.
I could not find any bias, however there can be an argument made for a false dilemma fallacy. This is because when the authors write, "Firstly, it is through language that we socially construct the Other and create (in)visible social boundaries." (Natalie Victoria Wilmot, Mary Vigier, and Kristina Humonen,) This can mean that the authors presented the idea that language can either be used for othering or inclusion and now in-between which is completely untrue because there are different options like acknowledging but not including.
There could be an argument made for the logos appeal when Wilmot states, “It is through language that power structures, multiple meanings and ideologies are created, challenged, reinforced and negotiated,” (Natalie Victoria Wilmot, Mary Vigier, and Kristina Humonen) This can be seen as an appeal to logos because of how it is completely logical to assume that language is what causes power structures since it is what we use to communicate.