Student’s name

Department of affiliation

Course

Professor

Date Introduction

This argumentative text written by Gloria Anzaldua was written first in 1987 and it has since become an “iconic trans-lingual text” (Whitney, 2017). The book addresses many issues but most importantly the issues which are faced by the people of a lower class as well as the lack of recognition of their language. It argues how the use of a person’s mother tongue has become an issue among many people and how the different tongues can be brought to harmony instead of hating each other because of their tongues. The text even though not linked to any political or government agencies arouses a political debate concerning languages and how they can be made equal rather than one group being looked down upon like here the case of the Chicanas who are looked down upon and brought out in the argumentative text as the people displayed to have an inferior language.

In the text, Anzaldua uses rhetorical techniques/devices to bring her message out that even though her group (Chicano) is trying to be silenced she will not keep quiet. She calls her tongue “wild” which indicates her desire to be heard and to represent her group in the best manner possible and this includes their language as well as the culture of the Chicano people. Gloria Anzaldua was an American scholar and she mainly focused her scholarly work around the Chicana theory, feminist and queer theory. She was born in south Texas in Rio Grande valley and she later became a very influential writer and especially in the studies of Chicana and American studies. She was passionate about Chicana and this helped many people who were mistreated because of being Chicana gain their dignity back regards to her efforts to make their voices heard.

Author’s background

Her passion to voice a voice for the voiceless like most of the Chicanas can be attributed to her childhood experience whereby her parents were not well off and especially after the death of her father. This background of the author helps us understand the reasons why the author brings out the issues of a wild tongue which many people are trying to silence but at the same time it keeps on being active and talking. The imagery of the dentist which she brings in the first part of the story is to help us understand how people tried to silence the Chicanas but then the wild tongue kept disturbing and being unable to be silent.

The title of the book gives us a difficult task in understanding it since in itself it is a metaphor and this brings out beautifully the issue about the Chicanas being mistreated and at the same time trying to voice their concerns.

Audience

In this text, the main audience being addressed is the people who always want and wish to discriminate based on the type of languages the others speak. The text also addresses the people who are not in a position to speak out in their mother tongues because they feel that they may be discriminated against. This encourages them to speak their mother tongues out as well as be proud of who they are and where they come from. It is one of the best argumentative texts comparing the languages and bringing to the reader the importance of having a background and a language because through this we can talk and be a people of the same origins. If a person tries to end a person’s language then they are trying to finish them because a language carries culture and so much more.

The text focuses on these two kinds of people to a large extent even though it also focuses on other groups like political leaders and policymakers.

The purpose of this argumentative text can be said to have been met because the way the issues are presented is in such a manner that the writing was almost perfectly done, this combined with its popularity and the liking attached to it is a good reason to say that the author achieved her purposes for writing this text. It is indeed an iconic trans-lingual text.

Rhetorical strategies

Anzaldua uses a variety of rhetorical strategies which are ethos and logos. She uses an example of her real example in a school whereby she tried to correct the teacher on how her name was supposed to be pronounced but then the teacher got angry and took it offensively. She mainly uses examples from her real-life experience and through this, the ethos strategy is brought out very clearly. In these kinds of examples, she convinces the audience that her examples are real and worth reading.

Through the argumentative essay, Anzaldua makes the reader look into her situation, not from his/her perspective but the perspective of herself self, and through this, she establishes ethos with the audience. She also displays ethos in the part she says that “I am my language” (378). Through this, she informs the audience of what she values most which is the language of a people.

Logos are displayed through the way she compares and contrasts the two languages that are Chicano Spanish and standard Spanish. She brings out undoubtedly the differences which exist between the two even after 250 years of colonization known as Anglo-colonization.

Language

“There is no one Chicano language just as there is no one Chicano experience. A monolingual Chicana whose first language is English or Spanish is just as much a Chicana as one who speaks several variants of Spanish […] Ethnic identity is twin skin to linguistic identity – I am my language.” (80 – 81)

Through the above part of the text, we can see the place of language in the text. However, we can discuss language both in how it is used in the text and at the same time how it is argued within the text. In the former, we can see that Anzaldua mixes both English and English which is a sign of the linguistic variety presented within the text and it helps the reader to appreciate both languages. She speaks confidently and openly which is an important quality.

In the latter we can see in the excerpt above that Anzaldua says that I am my language and therefore that denotes many values and tenets related to language. It can mean that language is her responsibility to preserve and represent that language that preserves her culture and which she has grown up knowing. Even though we see that Chicano is viewed as inferior the progress made is remarkable so that the language can be respected and recognized as a good language just like any other language.

The argumentative essay cannot be strictly placed in any specific genre because of its variety of issues presented and also its variety of language presentation but in a general manner it can be said to be a masterpiece and it should continue to inform people of the importance of respecting other people’s languages and how this can be achieved.

Conclusion

This argumentative essay is a work that can be attributed to some extent to the respect and the value granted to Chicanos of late and it can be said to bring out the issues of a language in its specific manner. It proposes that the rights of each speaker of a language have to be respected and valued as any other human being. Therefore, through this argumentative text, we see the world with better eyes, and our minds are opened to accept and interact with more people with whom we are different.

References

Aaron Joya, (2015), Rhetorical Analysis of “How to Tame a Wild Tongue”, retrieved on 6th November 2020 from https://www.studymode.com/essays/Rhetorical-Analysis-Of-How-To-Tame-68025706.html

Stenberg, S. (2011). Teaching and (re) learning the rhetoric of emotion. Pedagogy, 11(2), 349-369.

Anzaldúa, G. (1987). How to tame a wild tongue. na.Anzaldua, G. (2002). How to tame a wild tongue. In. G. Anzaldua,(Ed.), Critical convergences (pp. 28-39).

Selzer, J. (2003). Rhetorical analysis: Understanding how texts persuade readers. In What writing does and how it does it (pp. 285-314). Routledge.