Corbin's Analysis of Meditation at Langunitas

     Language is something that bonds people together and makes it easier to communicate with others. People have very different perspectives on language and speak many different ones. Meditation at Languitas has an interesting approach when talking about language. Meditation at Languitas was written by Robert Hass who talked about ideas and how they make the world richer and fuller then a world that is just reality and every day things. This analysis will focus on the importance of words and the tie they may or may not have with language.

     Hass talks about an idea that some people believe, which is that some people think that talking about specific ideas and things will take away from the general ideas of life. For example, he says "the idea, for example, that each particular erases the luminous clarity of a general idea. That the clown- faced woodpecker probing the dead sculpted trunk of that black birch is, by his presence, some tragic falling off from a first world of undivided light." People think that the woodpeckers or the word blackberry are dull in comparison the what they are representative of. The idea that people think of words as nothing really and as a substitute to tie ideas together is incorrect. Toward the end of the poem Hass talks about how just the word can be a beautiful thing which completely refutes the idea that its more about the idea and nothing is significant about the word. Hass says "There are moments when the body is as numinous as words, days that are the good flesh continuing. Such tenderness, those afternoons and evenings, saying blackberry, blackberry, blackberry." Words help connect things to ideas in our mind and give us a foundation for emotion and ideas. Words are all beautiful and have a huge significance in language.

Jenna's analysis of language in Meditation at Lagunitas

       Language itself is an important aspect of our lives and as our roles as human beings. However, how language is used to communicate is an even bigger concept and aspect how it's used can either make you or break you when it comes to whether you communicated effectively or not.
       In Meditation at Lagunitas by Robert Haas there's several examples of this. For instance, when it's stated that, "The idea, for example, that each particular erases the luminosity clarity of a general idea." The way he uses this language effectively communicates that the details in a situation can fog up, so to speak, our understanding of the big idea. Also where he give the example of the word blackberry and how no one thought or image comes to mind when you hear this word. Words are symbols what comes to mind may or may not match up with the definition of the word.  This aspect of language can make communication less effective because multiple-meaning words can cause confusion for clear reasons. Haas did a great job conveying these points that even some of the most educated people don't realize. Effective communication is an important principle in our lives; most employers rank communication as number one when looking for the right candidate for the job.
       Now you may be wondering why the use of language to communicate effectively or not is so important. It's because if we don't know how to use language we can't communicate effectively, if we can't communicate effectively, we can't get anything done. Just the tone of voice or the way we word things can determine if you got your point across or not. For instance, if someone complements someone, depending on the tone that was used they could think you're being creepy, or nice, or that you're hitting on them. The tone and word use you use with a teacher or professor can change the way they receive your message.

Language is beautiful

            Language is a beautiful thing. I can’t imagine what our world would be like without language. We are able to effectively communicate with everyone around us in such a complex way that we would not be able to do without language. We have thousands of words to describe something and multiple words or phrases to express the same idea. For example, you could talk about a cat by also saying the word kitty. Our world today is so advanced due to our ability to communicate with each other and become skilled in different areas. All of the technology that we are able to produce and learn would not be here if we did not have a way to learn new things from each other in such a complex way. It is possible to live a life without language. Ildefonso did it for 27 years but once he was introduced into language he was so perplexed by it that he was itching to learn more every day. The joy on his face when it finally clicked in his head that there are words for everything and this is how we communicate with each other was probably a priceless moment to observe. Language is powerful enough that we can influence each other in a positive or negative way. Sometimes violence will strike is the wrong words are said at the wrong time to the wrong person. Language can bring us joy or sadness as well. We could hear something on the news about a tragic event that occurred and it could shock the whole country and leave millions of people in remorse. Language has also been powerful enough to stick around since it was created. We still speak the same language that was spoken in this country thousands of years ago. It changes over time and that is the beauty of language.

Is the Death of a Language a Good Thing?

    Anzaldúa would completely disagree with everything John McWhorter wrote about in The Cosmopolitan Tongue: The Universality of English, because McWhorter's main idea is that the death of a language means people are coming together and this is a good thing. Anzaldúa would hate the thought of an entire language being killed off, especially since she's experienced people throughout her own life that wanted to keep her from speaking her own language. This would possibly be the most horrific thing she could ever possibly imagine to happen. It would be the most violent act of war against people of different backgrounds.
    
    I wholly disagree with John McWhorter's idea that the death of language is a good thing. I think that the death of language is taking away an important part of the world's culture and diversity. When a language dies it's not easy to learn about it and learn how to speak it. As John McWhorter says in his writing, there are many shelves "that groan under the weight of countless foreign-language self-teaching sets that are about as useful as the tonics and elixirs that passed as medicine a century ago and leave their students with anemic vocabularies and paltry grammar that are of little use in real conversation." Just because you can try and learn a forgotten language, doesn't mean it's going to be accurate or ever be used in the correct way. Language connects people to each other, and if a language dies, so does a little bit of that connection. McWhorter  goes on to say that English has a "head start" at being "the lingua franca of popular culture, scholarship, and international discourse would ensure its linguistic dominance." The fact that the English language is slowly becoming the dominant language throughout the world in different cultures, makes me sad. These cultures are losing a part of themselves. There's a worry that English will not only  "become primus inter pares, but that it will finally eat up even the last remaining 600 languages as well." This is a reality that scares me, and would probably terrify Anzaldúa to the core.

The Unity of Dead Languages

Andzadúla would disagree with John McWhorter's prevailing idea from his essay "The Cosmopolitan Tongue", which is that language death is a positive, unifying thing. Their ideas are opposing. In Andzadúla's book "How To Tame A Wild Tongue", she expresses just how much language is a part of a person. She believes that not allowing someone to speak their native language is an act of violence. So permanently silencing a language must be the most horrific, violent thing that could happen because in turn it is also permanently silencing an entire group of people whom spoke that language.

I agree with John Mcwhorter's essay to an extent. Death of a language is a unifying thing. To have a dead language there must be no native speakers left, no one who is fluent in the language as a first language. With a language being removed from the world there is one less variable to deal with. For example, in a mathematical equation the more variables there are the more complex the equation (7x-12y+4z=19). Just like an equation with only a few variables is simpler in comparison (x+3=8). With less languages to speak people would form larger communities, because the smaller amount of languages still needs to cover the same amount of area as the large number of languages did. However, I don't believe language death is a positive thing. With the loss of a language that culture also dies. Words with beautiful, unique meanings are lost. Yes, people are unified by the deaths of languages, but it is a violent unity. People are unified over the act of conquering and vanquishing of languages because it removes a variable from the equation. It makes it simpler to unite.

The Death of Language? Team Phoenix- Nina Reyes

If the death of language brings people together and therefore it is a good thing, I think Anzaldúa would disagree with McWhorter’s notion, its a bad thing when language dies. In Anzaldúa’s novel it is implied that not being able to understand each other, pushes people apart, but also brings them together when they are speaking the same language, like when people from the same country or area speak their language, bringing them and their cultures together. If McWhorter read Anzaldúa novel, I would assume that he would disagree with Anzaldúa because it would seem that not being able to understand each other pushes people apart, however, McWhorter does not realize that having that same common ground, that same common language, brings people together, sort of like how Thanksgiving dinner brings a family together and sometimes during that Thanksgiving dinner, the language of English is not spoken. In my family, this reality happens, food not only brings us together, but also language, we get to be ourselves, we get to embrace our culture and it seems like, just for a moment we are no longer in the United States of America, but we are in our homeland, it seems like we are back in our heritage, we are back home. This is the power of the diversity of languages spoken in the United States, the melting pot, and how it brings people together, our differences correlate with one another, thus, persuading us to come together and understand each other. By being able to understand each other, we also form relationships and bonds that cause our diverse languages to grow and also our culture. If we were to only speak one language and one language only, not only will the death of language occur but also the death of diverse heritage, relationships and the death of culture.

How to tame a wild tongue

     The first amendment in theory is supposed to protect our right to free speech , but after reading How to Tame a Wild Tongue it is evident that many cultures primary language is under attack. silencing a person based on their language, in my opinion, is a blatant act of  aggression, but one many of us fail to recognize because it may not have a direct impact on us. Anzaldúa recalls that getting caught speaking Spanish at recess "was good for three licks on the knuckles with a sharp ruler". She experienced at a young age institutional oppression. Her native voice was stripped from her at school by the same teachers that were supposed to build the basis of all learning and acceptance. she was physically punished for speaking a language deemed lesser by an intolerant educational system , actions like these create problems in the future because it teaches kids that one language is superior than another. Every conflict ever, has arisen from one group thinking they are better than another, which is why denying someone their language based on the belief that yours is better is an act of violence. 
     The unconscious lessons taught through the schools, that one language is inferior to the other, created divides in the thinking of Chicanos. Anzaldua notes that "chicanas who grew up speaking Chicano Spanish have internalized the belief that we speak poor Spanish. it is illegitimate, a bastard language.And because we internalize how our language has been used against us by the dominant culture, we use our language differences against eachother." Intolerance breeds intolerance, the culture that forced them to abandon their own language has no turned them into their weapons. They use them to tear away at their own culture until it is defeated. The same tactic was used centuries ago when prisoners were captured and then used as conscripts. It is ignorant to say that taking away someones language isn't violence. violence is spawned from ignorance and intolerance, which the school promoted in order to enforce the " dominant culture".

Denying a group their language is a violation of the first amendment

  Denying someone the right to speak the language they are comfortable with is like denying them the right to breathe and think. When we as a society tell a person that they can't speak a certain language because someone else can't understand what they are saying we are basically telling them that they can't be who they are. We silence their voice and push them to shy away from themselves and their culture. How can you deny someone the satisfaction of speaking the language they grew up with just because you weren't raised listening to that language. In the beginning of "How to Tame a Wild Tongue" Anzaldua begins with someone at the dentist and the dentist having a struggle cleaning their mouth because of their tongue. The dentist keeps repeating "We're going to have to control your tongue." The person who is getting their teeth cleaned is confused because how do you just control someone else's tongue? In the first amendment it says that humans have the right to free speech but when we make someone suppress their mother tongue we are denying them that basic right.
  There are some people that violate that right which people have fought to give us. Anzaldua mentions how one time when she was at recess she was caught speaking Spanish and got punished for it. She was hit on the knuckles with a ruler. The Anglo teacher who made her stand in the corner for "talking back" told her "If you want to be American, speak 'American.' If you don't like it, go back to Mexico where you belong." This statement to me is ironic because if someone had said this to a Native American I would say to them "If you want to speak 'American' (which you can't because it's a race not a language) then you can go back to England. People forget that they weren't the first ones here they came later when there were already people living here.
  Denying a group their language is a violation of that groups right to freedom of speech. Anybody who denies anyone that right is an awful human being and needs to remember that they don't get to decide what someone speaks just to please their ignorant selves. We the human race are unique because we all speak differently and are raised differently. We create an act of violence when we force someone to silence who they are and live and speak a different way. It may not be a physical act of violence but it became one when that teacher hit her with a ruler because she spoke Spanish. Things can escalate to a physical violent point when an ignorant person is angered just because they don't understand.

Prompt2

Communication is key to understanding the world around us and everything within it. I agree that language creates links in the brain that allow us to think more complex thoughts. As Elizabeth Spelke described, infants and children have little language, they don’t understand things the way adult do until around the age of six and it’s not just because children are stupid which is what I would think, but because they can not piece together spatial concepts such as “left of the blue wall”. Our brains sadly do not become equipped with the latest and most updated word software, we have to gain it over time from the people around us, for example it took me month to figure out my left from my right. In school kids are taught tricks like sticking out your hands; the one making the L shape is your left while the other is the right but did we really know what this meant? I, personally, took a while to learn it because I didn’t see the point at the time, what’s a left? Why would I need to know references to two different sides when I could just point at what I’m talking about, right? Of course growing meant I needed to start growing my reading level which meant going to clubs and reading a certain number of books for a pizza party and I quickly learned how in books spatial concept such as: left, under, through, painted a more understandable picture in the brain for one to follow the story along easier, because more of these words created a more distinct, explainable and vivid picture.

Additionally, I think that more complex words allow more complex thoughts. With growing up we stop using the words “thingy” and “stuff” to describe things, desperately hoping the other person gets it, and we gain more descriptive words that both parties can understand the exact implication of what is being talked about. Remember that romantic awakening in middle school when everyone started dating and you probably got your first crush? My parents would call that “puppy love”. My friends would call it “like-likeing”. With these being the only two concepts presented to me at the time it was all I knew, either you like someone or you love them, just as the original group of signers only had few signs to describe what they were trying to communicate. Now as adult we understand the differences between infatuation, obsession, love, lust, etc. because we were finally given more complex words to describe these concepts. Language can completely change the way we think as I glad that I don’t think in the simplistic way I did as a kid, and I can understand now that it didn’t mean that young me and all other children are just stupid, but language as a whole takes time to learn and as you gain it, either personally or even as a society growing with new language for universal concepts, we can understand and think about much more.

TEAM YETI: TO WHAT EXTENT DOES LANGUAGE INFLUENCE OUR THOUGHTS? ( PROMPT 2)

     Hmm I think I am happy...Hmm Creo que me siento feliz..These are thoughts that goes through our minds all the time because of the presence of .various languages.Ever wondered what life was like before the introduction of language? How was thinking even possible?

   Language turns he brain on. It expands it in every way possible so it can work to the best of its abilities. Elizabeth Spelke; an American cognitive psychologist argues that language creates a link in the brain that allows us to have complex thoughts and to understand spatial concepts. I strongly agree with this assessment and I think it is accurate to a very large extent because it is through language each one of us is able to communicate not just with people but also with our environment. Language doesn't necessarily have to be spoken words.It can also be the vast amount of body languages we have and these all starts from the brain. Language plays a major role in the way we express our emotions, our way life of life, and most importantly the way we see the world as a whole.So it basically creates  a really large network which the leads to the complex thoughts we humans have.And like Spelke mentioned it enables us to understand spatial concepts which starts from a very young age. These spatial concepts helps us build our relationship with objects, pay more attention to directions and also express our ideas clearly. These eventually leads to the origination of complex thoughts which are also shaped by the experiences we go through daily.

      Ann Senghas an associate professor of psychology at Barnard College recently did a study based on a new language invented by deaf Nicaraguan children. Anyone born deaf in Nicaragua is usually  isolated and not given the chance to interact with the society or even get the opportunity to experience how it feels to be human. I watched a documentary about the new Nicaraguan deaf language and the people there we isolated to the point that even their family members( children inclusive) left them alone due to their inability to communicate using any form of language. The isolation starts as soon as they are born and the fact that there are no doors open to them in order for them to learn a language of any sort, not even sign language! greatly affects the way their brain functions as the neurons in the brain deigned to process thoughts, learn a new word each day and communicate with people goes to waste..they all just die of and this is referred to as neural pruning.
 
    Eventually these kids were allowed to mingle with the rest of the society but at this time it was a little but too late for them to learn any of the 6,300 languages we have on earth due o this they came up with their own brand new language and they are now able to communicate effectively and have complex thoughts. The adults in the documentary i watched weren't able to pick up a new language like the children did.Therefore in the case of Ann Senghas and the deaf kids, children have more complex thoughts than adults do because of the high level of adaptation and thought processing they have.I also agree with the fact that the more complex the words we use, the more complex our thoughts will be.

  In conclusion, language is able to change the way we think because it is the only way in which we can effectively deal with what goes on in our minds and our surroundings. A tribe in Australia do not use words such as up, down,left or right. Instead they use North, South, West and East.If for example I ever visit them, my level of thinking will be so slow because i will obviously respond faster if someone  tells me "a girl is sitting in front of the house" compared to "a girl is sitting east of the house".So yes Language influences our thoughts to a very large extent.

how the purpose and audience of these two different speeches is reflected in how they are written.

Most people have a shared experience of having a wise old folk from which they’ve learned many life lessons; David Foster Wallace presented this notion with a story of fish, Toni Morrison presented this with a tale of a blind woman. Both of these essays were speeches intended for two different audiences and occasions, and yet even with overlapping similarities a reader can see the purpose and intended audience reflected in the manner of which these were written. Nobel Lecture is written in such a way that it only needs to follow one tale to portray the effects of language on the world, each meaningful line this wise old blind woman says marks a point in language as a whole, teaching these young people who originally came to “disprove her clairvoyance” about speech and inner trust. The bird becomes metaphorical when it is revealed that the young people have brought no physical bird in their hand and it is her we travel further into understanding that their perspective is shortsighted compared to the old blind black woman as she can finally trust them with this nonexistent bird, that these kids wouldn’t kill a bird to prove a point of an ill motive. While Wallace was written in such a broad manner that students could follow, multiple metaphors broadcasting the meaning to one’s life and how to maintain life in such a world. He is obviously more of a teacher teaching students to go into the “real world” with empathy of others around them before they grow up to be self-absorbed while Morrison is more teaching those already grown and maybe already self-absorbed adults to share perspectives with one another to learn together.

Both speeches immerse their audiences into the harsh reality of the world around them. In "This is Water", presented and composed by David Foster Wallace, presents a view of the average day of a working man. Wallace narrates to the audience the heightened emotions that man feels as he goes through traffic, the grocery store, and work. In Morrison's speech "Nobel Lecture" she draws attention to another harsh reality, the violence words can cause. There is a difference here as well. Morrison brings to light an area that we normally wouldn't think about on a daily basis; the violence going on in the world and how easily and recklessly it's caused. Wallace takes the audience to their local grocery store, something people consider often.
The diction used in the speeches is very different. David Wallace uses a more simple vocabulary.  Occasionally he even uses profanities to emphasize points such as " because of all these stupid god-dammed people." I feel that he is using a "looser" vocabulary because his audience is mainly teenagers. Morrison's speech has an advanced vocabulary since she is addressing a higher academic level audience. The "Nobel Lecture" has the appearance of being pre-written and refined, while "This is Water" appears to be constructed on the spot.

Alexander- A dinner with Awareness

     When I think of these two writers sitting down for a meal the first thing that comes to mind are the heated debates that will transpire. In both of their writings it is clear they value awareness but one is based on everyday plights and the other on controversial topics.
     At their table Morrison would bring up the importance of writing with a meaning and without apology . What I mean by this is to write about the grim truths that many others are too afraid to touch because they are considered taboo. Writing about the things that matter to you can bring awareness in the form of a new perspective. Wallace would agree to the extent that you can only become aware of people and things that are happening if you take the time to put yourself in their shoes and feel what they are feeling. He would use his examples of the everyday world ,in which we become frustrated and block out the feelings and thoughts of others, to show that we are self absorbed by nature so it would take an even higher level of self awareness to visualize the struggles of an entire people.
     By the time the bill is brought out they have come to an understanding that both components are  needed to be the most self and socially aware individual. Someone who is able to empathize and then write adeptly and without fear about what they witnessed.

Compare and Contrast: Explain how these two speeches are similar. Explain how they are different

Compare and Contrast

           In "This is Water" , the author spoke that speech at a commencement for a graduation class. Usually the goal is to inspire the graduates with words of wisdom and prosperity. I mean Wallace kinda , sort of did that . Wallace came with the truth and the realness of this world , we live in. The way he spoke was very vivid , as like Toni Morrison in his Noble Lecture. Wallace and Morrison both have very complex characteristics about them in their writings. In "This Is Water', Wallace comes at you with very factual experiences that one may have been through in some point of their life. Wallace talks about being in a long line at a grocery store with a bunch of screaming kids, and that you have a headache. I can relate to that. Also, Morrison brings that relatable  aspect of life in his Noble Lecture.  

           Morrison brings the aspect of young kids and the elderly. The young kids desperately want attention from the elder , looking for wisdom from a lady who's known for her wisdom. She is blind. Morrison brings the realism like Wallace does. In the lecture, it seem like the kids are in desperate need of wisdom. They want the wisdom from the old lady. They want to know what life is, even though they have many many years to come. Which I can relate, I always ask elderly people to tell me about their life and what they have been through. These two speeches are different because Wallace brings his commencement speech to the perspective of him and Morrison's story of the lady and the kids are made up. I can infer because he uses " Once upon a time..." Also these speeches are very common , because they speak of the real world , and how life is and can be. It makes both of the speeches very relatable , which I like very much.

Corbin's compare and contrast of the two speeches!

     This post is a reflection of "This is Water" by David Wallace and Toni Morrison's Nobel Speech. Both of these speeches are well thought out and offer in depth advice and wisdom. 
     The biggest thing that stood out to me as an interesting difference between these two speeches was a major theme throughout "This is Water" was that oftentimes people get caught in their routines and oftentimes think the world revolves around them. This idea was that people always think of themselves and get caught up and in a way, "zombie" through each day. People lack patience and do not want to invest in anything that does not show a direct benefit to ones self. It seemed like most of the ideas Wallace put out there showed personal issues having an indirect and inevitable effect on other people. On the other hand, Morrison's speech highlighted how people can directly hurt and affect other people. She focused on language and words. She talked about how harsh words can bring people down and how we hide people from the truth. She even talked about how words can cause oppression and the direct impact people have on other peoples lives. Its amazing how one's happiness can seemingly be robbed by other people's choice of words.
     Overall, I enjoyed both speeches. "This is Water" did an exceptional job at making me feel like I need to be more aware that every decision I make will probably effect other people, even the ones I subconsciously make. Morrison's Nobel Speech made me feel like I need to be careful with the words I say and how much of an impact they can have.

Comparing and Contrasting Toni Morrison's "Nobel Speech" and David Foster Wallace's "This is Water"

     Both speeches by Toni Morrison and David Foster Wallace are directed towards a large audience. Each speech was made to inspire and inform the people they were speaking to. David Foster Wallace's speech was aimed at a large senior class about to leave school and go out into the world. Toni Morrison's speech was to a much larger audience of varying ages and backgrounds.
 
     One similarity between the two speeches is they both use metaphors to get their point across. David Foster Wallace uses a metaphor about fish. An older and wiser fish ask two younger fish about how the water is and the younger fish have no idea what water is. This shows how people don't pay attention to everything around them and how they are focused more on their own selves. Toni Morrison uses the metaphor of a wise blind women, a couple of younger kids and a bird. The young children want to mess with the older women and they go up to her and ask her if the bird they hold in their hands is alive or dead. The women doesn't answer at first but after a few moments she tells the kids that whether the bird is alive or dead is completely up to them and their choices.  The bird can be interpreted to be the kids' future and that they can decide what it'll be. Each of these speeches talk about how everything is a person's choice and the consequences of those choices.

     One difference between these speeches is that Toni Morrison explains how powerful speech can be in everyday life. Everything a person says can mean way more than intended or implied. She says that "the systematic looting of language can be recognized by the tendency of its users to forgo its nuanced, complex, midwifery properties for menace and subjugation." Toni Morrison says that language doesn't only represent a certain action or movement but that it is that action or movement. In David Foster Wallace's speech, he emphasizes that a person's mindset is the most important. He says that a person who is in a situation and is only looking at all the negatives can just make up their mind and choose to look at the predicament in a more reasonable manner. David Foster Wallace makes this point by saying that "if you've really learned how to think, how to pay attention, then you will know you have other options."

Jazmyn's Response to the simmilarites of Toni Morrison and David Foster Wallace's speeches

Toni Morrison and David Wallace share different approaches to the same topic.  The speeches both express how we are in control of our choices and how we value ourselves. The speeches are also given to two completely different audiences. David Foster Wallace’s speech “This is water”, was given at a graduation commencement. He expresses to the graduates that your feelings or emotions are a choice and how often as human beings we are “self-centered”. Toni Morrison’s “Nobel Lecture” speech was given to a group of people who are probably already established. She mainly expresses more on how our actions are choices. How we react to certain things rather than how we feel about them. She talks about how we chose to react with language and several other actions. Both Toni Morrison and David Foster Wallace use figurative language and storytelling to get their points across in their speeches. David Foster Wallace opens his speech up with a story about two fish; he uses the two fish as a metaphor to transition into his speech. He also shares other stories throughout the speech. Toni Morrison opens her speech with a story about an elderly blind African American woman. She uses this story as a reference to our actions being choices. Overall both speeches express how we are in control of our feelings and actions. Everything is a choice!

Compare and contrast: explain how these two speeches are similar. Explain how they are different.

  Both, David Wallace's "This is Water" speech and Toni Morrison's "Nobel Lecture" speech were given to possibly change the way you think throughout your everyday life.  They each begin using simple metaphors that you can apply to life as a whole.  "This is Water" used a fish story, and in the passage the author (David Wallace) stated that, "The immediate point of the fish story is that the most obvious, ubiquitous, important realities are often the ones that are the hardest to see and talk about." In Toni Morrison's "Nobel Lecture" the metaphor used is a wise blind woman was asked by two young people who were, "disproving her clairvoyance", whether or not the bird in one of the kids hand was dead or alive. The blind woman understands the meaning of words much more than the average person, because the words she uses are her only tool to communicate or interact with people due to the fact that she cannot see.
  One major difference I noticed between the two speeches is that "This is Water" was a commencement speech to a group of graduates whereas the "Nobel Lecture" was a speech given after Toni Morrison won the Nobel Prize that was targeting African-Americans or possibly just minorities in general.  Another difference is "This is Water" was more about how we handle the difficult situations that come throughout our everyday life and the "Nobel Lecture" speech was given to show that the words we use can be much more powerful than we intend. Another thing is that Morrison mentioned is that the words we use can be used as a tool, good and bad.

Angelicas' comparison and contrast for "This is Water" by David Wallace and Toni Morrison's "Nobel Lecture"

  When reading both "This is Water" and the "Nobel Lecture" I found key similarities in the two texts. Both texts mention that we as human beings get to decide what we choose to do with our lives nobody makes that choice for us. Both texts also mention how we as humans can either picture things that happen to us as being negative or positive. The difference between the two texts would be the audience that these texts are being said to. While one was a commencement speech for a graduating class the other was meant to be a message for African Americans.
  In "This is Water" Wallace states " The only thing that's capital-T True is that you get to decide how you're going to try to see it." And in Morrison's "Nobel Lecture" she states " Whether it is to stay alive, it is your decision. Whatever the case, it is your responsibility." Both of these text mention how it is our choice, our right to choose what we does and doesn't happen to us in our lives. Life is a choice and our life is what we make of it. Another similarity is how they both mention examples where we as humans can see things as being negative or positive. For instance in "This is Water" Wallace mentions many scenarios that we have all been in at one point or another. We at first hand can see a line of people in front of us as being in our way and annoying. In the "Nobel Lecture" the blind woman knows what the intention of the children are yet she is untouched by what the children seek to do. We can either let what other people do whether it be known or unknown to us affect us or just let it go.
  Both Wallace and Morrison's texts held meaning but the difference was who the texts were targeted at. Wallace gave his speech as a commencement speech for a graduating class he may have just told it to that class but he did not mean it just to hit one race. As with Morrison's her speech was mainly meant to be a beacon to that of African Americans or as seen as in my opinion.
  In conclusion both texts hit upon main points that we as humans are all guilty of doing. We may not know that we are doing them but what matters most is how we change what we have done to make what we do in the future better.

The similarities and differences within a change by Jesse Khaled

With the text “This is Water” by David Foster Wallace, and Toni Morrison’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech, the reader can pick out key similarities and differences, within the two authors text. Both writings portray the importance of one’s outlook on a situation, and how it can change an outcome completely. Wallace portrays a series of events, that most people can somewhat relate to, the best example is when he states how we react to traffic. We can choose to become enraged by the situation and let it get to us, but if you looked at it differently, the outcome would change, if we knew that the person who just cut us off was going so fast because his son is in need of a doctor, would we still be enraged by it? Of course not, this is a prime example on how choosing to look at a situation differently changes the outcome. Same for the blind wise woman from Morrison’s speech. She didn’t see the kids question, as them questioning her ability, but more as a test for their own morality, showing that they cared so much about proving themselves correct, that they forgot all about the lives of other living things, in this example the bird. The main difference between the two text, is the message both authors are trying to portray, Wallace is making the point that we must look at the world in a different way for our wellbeing, “This is Water” show the biggest flaw with human beings, selfishness, and how we can let it rule out lives. On the other hand Morrison’s text tells us the reason for us to change is to save not only our on morality, but those around us, because we all play a essential part in everyone’s lives around us .