Andrea Gordillo Universidad Yachay Tech Imbabura, Ecuador
December 4, 2015 Dear Portfolio Reader: My name is Andrea Gordillo, I present to you my portfolio of English and thank you very much for reading it. It is a compilation of all my work done during this semester of English and shows my ability to improve as an English learner. The portfolio consists of 4 essays and a final research project developed in my last level of the English program of the University. I am very proud of the work done in this, and of the growth that I obtained. And thanks to this, every time I feel more ready to continue to take all my classes in English from the fifth semester. For me, it has been really important to have the opportunity to be in direct contact with expert users in English as is my teacher. As a student, at this level of the English program, I had a lot of activities to improve my skills in this language. Throughout the semester, I had the opportunity to learn more about pronunciation and intonation of the language. In addition, direct communication between my teacher and my classmates helped me improve my listening and speaking skills. From the beginning of the semester, I wanted to improve my writing and understanding of English and in my portfolio can see the growth through all the essays that I
did. I have learned to be more responsible and committed to myself. Today, I can understand many things better and I am sure that this language will help me to have more opportunities and open my mind. I feel good with all the progress made during the course, and although, this semester and I finish it, I will continue to grow as an English learner. I want to be able to read and understand scientific texts written in English, so I will try to read and hear more in this language. English is a fundamental tool in our lives and I am proud to be able to speak, read and understand many new things in this language.
Thank you very much again for reading my portfolio. I hope you like everything that I've written, because I put a lot of effort into each essay. I will continue to learn more about the language so that I can be more competent in English and ready to start my professional career.
Sincerely,
Andrea Gordillo
The setting of the story “Araby “with the nature of the boy's world
Andrea Gordillo
Yachay Tech University
October 17, 2016
The setting of the story with the nature of the boy's world “Araby” by James Joyce is a story about a boy´s innocent love and a not so good experience as a result. It´s a story about the world which he lives. His first love that he found is a girl in his neighborhood who attends a convent. He visits a fair called Araby to buy something for her but he realized upon arriving that the bazaar is nothing like what he imagined. The setting of the story is developed in several scenes: North Dublin Street, his house and his ride to Araby. The description of the setting suggest nature of the boy´s world such as his life, her thoughts. First, "Araby" takes place in a quiet North Dublin street, surrounded by numerous rustic buildings. He lives in a neighborhood that he has obviously spent most of his time in. The boy feels very emotionless about where he lives and how his neighborhood appears because he doesn´t feel any emotion in it. Moreover, the boy describes “The other houses of the street, conscious of decent lives within them, gazed at one another with brown imperturbable faces” (Joyce, 1914). This shows how the boys feel, in his case, his house smells musty, seems somewhat unkempt and he cannot think the same as the other houses. In Araby, the author uses dark color and uniform houses in the setting to convey the feelings of the child, uses dark and obscure references to make the boy´s reality of living in the gloomy town. Clearly, the boy lives in one of the poorer sections of the city; the boy describes his house like dusk and words like “high, cold, empty, gloomy rooms liberated me“(Joyce, 1914). Nearly all details of setting mentioned seem literally or figurative terms, which demonstrate the true child's thoughts.
The second part of the story takes places in Araby bazaar. The boy took a train using the money that his uncle gave him. During, the trip, the child looked at the environment and analyzed all things like how he feels; when he arrived at Araby, he described it as a dark, lifeless place, dirty. In that moment, the bazaar was closing down because it was already late and as a result, he was disappointed and even felt anger and the love represent as empty for him. In the story, the boy shows his mood and his attitude about how he feels with these words: “Gazing up into the darkness I saw myself as a creature driven and derided by vanity; and my eyes burned with anguish and anger� (Joyce, 1914). The child's feelings are projected in that way. The story contains an atmosphere with which thoughts and life of a young boy described through places and scenarios where he lives.
References Joyce,J.(1994).Araby.Retrievedfrom:https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzoP7xVzszlzQ1Vpd 2ZkaGQzems/view
Seaport with the embarkation of Saint Ursula
Andrea Gordillo
Yachay Tech University
November 11, 2016
Seaport with the embarkation of Saint Ursula
Incredible pieces of art have survived throughout the years and they have showed us how powerful, descriptive, graphic and imaginative the human mind can be. It is well known that in ancient times during many years, women were not recognized as member of the society. They were mistreated and discriminated because of their gender and also because there was the belief in men’s superiority. Women were considered as people who had to be at service of their husband, take care of her children and home chores. Seaport with the embarkation of Saint Ursula is a piece of art made by Claudio de Lorena that we believe shows a contradiction to what at that time people thought a society should be structured. The composition of this picture consists of gorgeous architecture, women in power, embarkations, men working, ships, bows, and the sea. All these elements triggered us and make us try to understand and comprehend what the painter is trying to say. We think that this piece of art represents the role and power of the women in this kind of strange society represented in the mentioned picture.
When we first saw this picture, we were astonished by one little detail: the presence of a lot of women that look like they are in power. This is strange because as we stated before, cultures at that time were ruled by men. We think the culture embodied in this work of art is totally against the role of the position women should have occupied. There is also another detail on the women in the painting and it is that all of them are wearing a bow on their shoulder. We think that the bows are symbols of strength and authority and also, we believe this means that those women were departing to war or maybe some type of diplomacy event.
But again, this is exactly the opposite of what cultures used to think. Which we believe is the reason that catches the painter’s attention. Something curious is that men in the picture don’t wear a bow or other gun, so can assumed that the painter assigned them a role of inferiority with respect to women. As said lines above men are at women’s service and they are loading the ships with what appears to be provisions to their journey. But we also believe this is not their first journey, because we think the painter chose a day where other ships were arriving to the seaport to show maybe that their trip was not successful. So, they have to sacrifice more women. But this time it looks like it is different, they have come to the decision of sending the “Queen” herself in order to stop this madness, this awful war. We can tell there is a “special” woman whom we called a “Queen” because this painting portrayed her carrying a flag. To us the flag gives her characteristics of leadership and control but also that she is willing to give her life if needed. We believe that the Queen is carrying the flag up high because she is not afraid, we feel her national pride because as she carries the flag she is also carrying the whole nation on her shoulders. Not only that but maybe the “Queen” is tired of this situation and wants to put an end. She does not want more blood on her hands, it has been enough. She cannot allow this any longer.
This picture is also composed of gorgeous architecture that we believe it is designed as some kind of castle/fortress. Its walls are high so that possible invasions would be harder to execute. But this fortress also plays really well with the environment. It combines beautifully with the sea. This is not peculiar because at that time many structures and cities were built around bays or near the ocean. Something that is a little odd is there isn’t ramparts, of course the walls of the castle are high but they are not ramparts. Which makes us believe
that this city was pacific, or at least they had never had the necessity of building structures as such. But at this point we wonder if this castle really is a castle. What made us doubt is that in the background of the painting we appreciate there is another castle-shaped structure and this is way bigger than the main structure before mentioned. Could this castle be the Queen’s home? Possibly, but we will not know for certain. Maybe that is why this “castle” does not look like it is weaponized.
Something interesting is the combination of colors used by the painter. It is not clear if the ambiance is set in sunset or dawn but we think is dawn. Thus, it supports the idea mentioned before that the queen is departing to war. We observe a mixture of soft and bright colors. We associate the bright colors with freedom and the rising of a nation but also with peace. We also believe the use of these colors shows audacity and positivism that connects with the supposed trip that would be done. There are two girls using green dresses on each side of the “Queen” and maybe at that time green was not associated with hope but it could be that is the reason why it started. The soft colors give us an idea of serenity and are perfectly related with the sea but not to the idea of war.
Should there be one global language? Andrea Gordillo Yachay Tech University December 05, 2016
Should there be one global language? Language is our principal tool for communication so, to live in society without language would be impossible. Around the world, there are 7000 different languages and each one can be identified with a particular culture. It is well known that we are living in a very complex society, and where if somebody wants to have success, he or she will need many important and basic skills, like be able to communicate with any person of any country around the world. This sounds very difficult, just imagine learning around 7000 of different languages. It is impossible! But if everybody spoke a common language, everything would be easier and better. There should be one global language because it would provide many benefits in the culture and politics in a society. Scientists and analysts predict that it is almost impossible that the world is dominated by a global language. This is primarily because language is part of our culture. Each culture, besides having its own customs and traditions has its own language as part of its idiosyncrasy. They say that it is impossible to separate the culture of individuals from their language because they think that many languages will disappear and it will decrease culture diversity. (Rodriguez, 2005). According to Dan Fitzgerald, a Washington, D.C.-based French instructor, the costs to humanity would be huge if losing the languages were lost of the world to a dominant global one. He claims that much of the culture that goes along with each of those languages would also disappear (Cancio, 2016). Language is an important part of culture, however, culture does not have to disappear only for have a global language Like Boroditsky defended in her article "language shapes the way we think" (Boroditsky, 2009). So, if all the human beings start to talk in a common language, everyone will share a very similar culture and the wway of thinking too. A global
language would provide better interaction with other cultures and greater opportunities to get to know others because we would have direct communication. The idea of a one global language has a lot to do with politics and balances of power. A global language would bring the homogeneity of the world population and will make people think in a monotonous way in political aspects. For a lot of people, learning a dominant world language is important for their future, but using their native language is a connection with their country (Cancio, 2016).Having a single language would only have a common point of view but with many languages there would be many ways of thinking that could be beneficial for the development of a government of a country. In order to have a good communication and avoid political misunderstandings between people it is very important to have a global language. In some parts of the world in the governments of some countries, there are people fighting for their religions or with the goal of imposing way of thoght. In the worlds’ history, we had seen a lot of wars caused by different paradigms. There are problems in the translation that generate conflicts or wars. For example, when United States attacked Hiroshima with nuclear bomb. This was because United States gave a message that was not understood in Hiroshima and for that reason they attacked them. In conclusion, having a global language would give a better interaction and communication between societies and cultures and probably there would be a reduced amount of conflicts because there would be no loss of communication when we translate some message. For this reason, language plays a very important role in culture and politics. One global language would unify people and cultures. That is what we actually need over the world. To feel as one. The world wants something in common and that is a global language.
References Boroditsky, L. (2009). How does our language shape the way we think? Edge Foundation.Retrievedfrom:https://www.edge.org/conversation/how-does-ourlanguage-shape-the-way-we-think Cancio, C. (2016).What if everyone on Earth spoke the same language? How stuff Works. Retrieved from: http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vsmyth/what-if/what-if-everyone-spoke-one-language1.htm Rodríguez, G. (2005). Qué pasaría si hubiera solo un idioma en el mundo.Vix Entertainment. Retrieved from: http://www.vix.com/es/btg/curiosidades/3615/que-pasaria-si-hubiera-solo-unidioma-en-el-mundo
Is the Livestock Industry Destroying the Planet? Andrea Gordillo Yachay Tech University December 11, 2016
Is the Livestock Industry Destroying the Planet? In recent years, people haven’t realized the damage that we are doing to the environment because of the livestock industry, which is growing uncontrollably because of ourselves. The consumption of animal products has a very real cost, which is the destruction of our environment. The human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force that practically now threatens the future of humanity. The production of livestock that produce meat and dairy products to humanity is causing many environmental consequences to the planet such as deforestation, waste of water, air pollution, greenhouse gases, and extinction of species (Bland, 2012). Without a doubt, the livestock industry has many consequences that are destroying the planet but, something that we definitely can do to slow the damage caused by it is to reduce our consumption of meat or become vegetarian. The main consequence of the livestock industry to the planet is the unnecessary expense of water. Most people try to save water by taking short showers or not leaving the tap open, but they do not realize that something that can really be done is to stop producing meat. According to a study, a hamburger requires 660 gallons of water to produce (Florio, 2015). More than two-thirds of all freshwater in the world is used exclusively for animal agriculture. In Botswana, for example, the livestock industry consumes 23 percent of all water used (Bland, 2012). Animal agriculture consumes on average 55 trillion gallons of water annually; on a micro level, it takes roughly 5,000 gallons of water to produce 1lb. of beef (Hyner, 2015). However, if you were simply vegetarian, you would reduce your water footprint by almost 60 percent. Imagine for a moment all the amount of water that we would preserve if we stopped consuming the meat, we would greatly reduce the damage we are causing to the planet. According to the Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI), most
of the planet's inhabitants could become vegetarians by 2050. In the next 40 years the population will increase by another 2,000 million, to be added to the current 7,000. The arable land available to feed 9 billion people will not be sufficient and, therefore, its extent should increase. In other words, by 2050, 60% of the population will suffer from water shortages, therefore, in order to save water, humanity will be forced to reduce its meat consumption several times (Sanz). The livestock industry is taking up all the Land of the planet. The global scope of the livestock issue is huge. A 212-page online report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization says 26 percent of the earth’s terrestrial surface is used for livestock grazing (Bland, 2012). Up to one-third of earth's landmass is used for livestock (June, 2013). A research claims, that to feed just one carnivorous requires more than three acres of land while all it takes to produce food for a vegetarian is one-sixth of an acre (Bland, 2012). Being vegetarian would help conserve a lot of land space to grow the necessary food and thus enjoy having a sustainable world. In addition, the deliberate alteration of the natural cycles of fertilization of the soils is typical of the livestock industry. For the creation of grasslands or animal crops, the soil is covered with multiple chemical fertilizers to accelerate the growth of plant products. This, while increasing the production of the soil for a while, accelerates the process of erosion and loss of soil quality, turning large areas into "dead zones" or desert terrain, infertile and without the possibility of rapid recovery. About 120 million hectares have undergone the process known as desertification, total loss of soil quality and fertility as a result of unsupervised livestock practices. Forests turn into deserts in record time, bringing the figure
of infertile desert land on the land surface to more than 25%, equivalent to 3.6 billion hectares (Climate change). Moreover, the livestock industry is destroying the forests and as a result, it also causes the extinction of several species. The World Bank has found that animal agriculture is responsible for roughly 90% of the razing of the Brazilian Amazon. More than 80 percent of Amazon rainforest destruction is due to the animal agriculture industry. Every minute that passes, 36 football fields of the Amazon is deforested to make room for cattle. The consequences of this extend further than just tearing down trees: Innumerable unrelated plant species are lost, most of them vital to the world’s oxygen supply (Florio, 2015). So, each day, at least one hundred innocent animal and plant species are killed in the Amazon rainforest because of livestock. For example, natural predators, such as the Wedge wolf pack in Washington state, are murdered to keep cattle alive (Florio, 2015). We are sucking the animal kingdom dry without any consideration for the lasting consequences, even when we aren't eating them. Therefore, not participating in the livestock industry and reducing our meat consumption would help avoid all of this. The greenhouse gases caused by the livestock industry also affect the planet. Globally, 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to the livestock industry (Bland, 2012). As meat and dairy consumption increases on a global scale, so does this impact. According to "Livestock Long Shadow" the livestock sector produces 9% of CO2 derived from human activities, but also generates a much higher percentage of other greenhouse gases: 65% of nitrous oxide, 37% of all production of methane gas, and 64% of ammonia. All these gases are the product of animal manure, waste and intestinal gas (Fabiola, 2008). It is also annually accountable for more than 32 billion tons of carbon dioxide and 65
percent of nitrous oxide emissions, a gas that stays in the atmosphere for one hundred and fifty years. It’s impossible to deny that the livestock industry is the leading cause of climate change. (Florio, 2015). But, emissions can be reduced directly to consumer demand, that is, only if we reduce our consumption of meat. If people were aware of the impact that livestock has on the environment they would show a great willingness to change their consumption habits. The livestock industry is a serious source of air pollution. Every minute, animals raised in the United States for food produce seven million pounds of excrement. A good example to demonstrate this is with the cows; one dairy cow produces the same amount of waste in one day as twenty to forty human beings. Altogether, livestock excrement discharges 150 billion gallons a day of methane, a gas proven to be nearly 25 times more dangerous than CO2. Then there is ammonia, which combines with other elements in the air and causes respiratory disorders and contributes to acid rain. More than 70 percent of all ammonia emissions comes from livestock factory (Florio, 2015). For many people the livestock industry is not destroying the planet. The reason for this is because they believe that the livestock industry not only gives us meat. According Michelle Miller, Farm Babe, many people may not be aware of is there are actually many uses for a pig, from cement to renewable energy, paint to brushes, and life-saving pharmaceuticals. She also assert that all products that produce animals for us, no part of an animal is going to waste because we consume all it. But most importantly that she claims is that, agriculture actually only makes up 8 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, with only 2 percent of that coming from livestock. When you compare the 8 percent greenhouse gas figure of agriculture to other industries, it is relatively low. Moreover, she recognizes some
of the consequences such as climate change but she says that always there will be ways to mitigate this (Miller, 2016). However, there is a lot of evidence and studies that show that the livestock industry is actually destroying the planet. The United Nations report warns that “livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale” especially for global greenhouse gas emissions and that the matter “needs to be addressed with urgency (Bland, 2012). For example, The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that livestock production is responsible for 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, while other organizations like the Worldwatch Institute have estimated it could be as much as 51 percent (One green planet 2016). The fact is, if we don’t start to shift away from meat, we will never be able to preserve life and the planet as we know it. In conclusion, the livestock industry is causing many damages to the environment as the unnecessary expense of water, the extinction of species, greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. In order to avoid this, it is necessary not to participate in the livestock industry, failing to consume the meat or would simply mean a small adjustment of our existing diet to a vegetarian. The vegetarians can pollute 50% less to the planet than people who eat meat on a daily basis. Far from depriving ourselves of food, we can enjoy fruits, grains and vegetables, as well as meat, why not enjoy it more often? Thus, we would avoid destroying the planet
References Bland, A. (2012). Smithsonian.com. Is the Livestock Industry Destroying the Planet? Retrieved from: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/is-the-livestock-industrydestroying-the-planet-11308007/ Cambio climático. La Ganadería y el Cambio Climático – Efectos Colaterales. Retrieved from: http://cambioclimaticoglobal.com/efectos-colaterales-la-industriaganadera Fabiola. (2008).Ganadería: una amenaza para el medio ambiente. Ecosofía.org.Retrieved from: http://ecosofia.org/2008/02/ganaderia_amenaza_medio_ambiente.html Florio, G. (2015). Bustle. 5 Ways Animal Agriculture Is Destroying Our Environment, Because Consuming Animal Products Has A Very Real Cost. Retrieved from: https://www.bustle.com/articles/76177-5-ways-animal-agriculture-is-destroyingour-environment-because-consuming-animal-products-has-a-very-real Hyner, C. (2015). A Leading Cause of Everything: One Industry That Is Destroying Our Planet and Our Ability to Thrive on It. Georgetown Environmental Law Review. Retrieved from: https://gelr.org/2015/10/23/a-leading-cause-of-everything-oneindustry-that-is-destroying-our-planet-and-our-ability-to-thrive-on-it-georgetownenvironmental-law-review/ June, L. (2013). The verge. Your meat addiction is destroying the planet. Retrieved from: http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/13/4605528/your-meat-addiction-isdestroying-the-planet-but-we-can-fix-it
Miller, M. (October 25, 2016).Farm Babe: No, livestock aren’t destroying the planet. Retrieved from: http://www.agdaily.com/insights/farm-babe-no-livestock-arentdestroying-planet/ One green planet (2016).People Have no clue that Eating Meat is destroying the Environment.
Let’s
Change
That.
Retrieved
from:
http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/people-have-no-clue-that-eating-meat-isdestroying-the-environment/ Sanz, E. ¿En el futuro seremos todos vegetarianos? Retrieved from: http://www.muyinteresante.es/curiosidades/preguntas-respuestas/ien-el-futuroseremos-todos-vegetarianos Zuloaga, L. (2015). ¿Qué contamina más que el transporte? Retrieved from: http://blogs.elpais.com/alterconsumismo/2015/02/qu%C3%A9-contaminam%C3%A1s-que-el-transporte.html
)