Month: September 2021

1. Anzaldua disagrees with this statement to a great extent because she speaks a language called Pachuco, which has lingo from both the English language and the Spanish language. In the text, on page 72, it states “Pachuco (the lan-guage of the zoot suiters) is a language of rebellion, both against Standard Spanish and Standard English. It is a secret language. Adults of the culture and outsiders cannot understand it. It is made up of slang words from both English and Spanish.” This quote from the text exemplifies the fact that English and Spanish, per se, aren’t actually two entirely different universes separated by a fine line because there indeed is another, uncommon language that actually connects the two languages. This uncommon language happens to be a hybrid language consisting of lingo from both English and Spanish. 
2. Something I noticed about Anzaldua’s writing style is that she uses her personal experiences to make her argument stronger. For example on page 73, she states “We use anglicisms, words borrowed from English: bola from ball, carpeta from carpet, máchina de lavar (instead of lavadora) from washing machine. Tex-Mex argot, created by adding a Spanish sound at the beginning or end of an English word such as cookiar for cook, watchar for watch, parkiar for park, and rapiar for rape, is the result of the pressures on Spanish speakers to adapt to English.” I think Anzaldua used the technique of personal experience to support her argument because it can be effective in convincing and compelling the reader when they know that it’s something that the author has experienced first hand. It also made her argument sound personal because she made it seem like a part of her livelihood was being discriminated against when the theory stated that English and Spanish represent different universes. 
3. Liao’s conventions for literacy narratives that were most apparent in Sedaris’s essay was using her own experiences. On page 59, Liao states “literacy narratives use specific examples to illustrate ideas about literacy that we’ve acquired as a result of our own experiences, and explain explicitly why these ideas are important.” She strengthens this claim by proceeding to tell the reader about her experiences of learning the French language. She mentioned how her experience of learning wasn’t the most enjoyable experience, as well as for her discourse community, due to how harsh her French teacher was. However, towards the end she mentions how she is able to understand what her teacher is saying but she said herself, that doesn’t mean she’s fluent in the language. It just means progress was made. On the contrary, a convention that seems less important to Sedaris is making her point explicitly stated because it’s about making the reader understand, not just telling them about it. 
4. By the end of her essay, I genuinely don’t think Manson felt the same as she did in the beginning of the essay. Even though all her problems didn’t just go away, she managed her way and found ways to cope. Her silence was her way of dealing with which could not be spoken of. Although at the end she became silent again, her demeanor and mindset had changed. Her “I don’t know” had changed into “I said what I could”. Little changes in her mannerism proves that she had grown from the person she was at the beginning of her essay.

1-Many people believe that there is one theory of language, involving firm lines betweens languages, many speakers believe that these different languages contain completely different realms, which can not share a common reality. Yet, Anzaldua disagrees due to the fact that the Chicano Spanish which she speaks is a living language. A language which are ”For a people who are neither Spanish nor live in a country in which Spanish is the first language; for a people who live in a country in which English is the reign-ing tongue but who are not Anglo; for a people who cannot entirely identify with either standard (formal, Castilian) Spanish nor standard English”(Page 70). Meaning that the Chicano Spanish language is in constant development.

 

2- Anzaldua writes with a persuasive manner, she takes everything she says to heart and truly believes in what she writes. Anzaldua chose to write her literacy narrative on her struggles speaking Chicano Spanish. For instance, Anzaldua and her people grew up with such worrying beliefs  “Chicano Spanish have internalized the belief that we speak poor Spanish. It is illegitimate, a bastard language” (Page 73). In addition, Anzaldua writes in a very conflicting way, she speaks about how flip-flopping between languages is forbidden, then goes into great detail of how she continuously switches from language to language.

 

3-  Liao’s convention, also known as the journey from confusion to fluency, is best displayed in Sedaris’s essay. In both literacy narratives it begins with them learning new languages to eventually knowing those languages. On the contrary Liao’s literacy narrative convention of change does not appear in Sedaris’s essay. Even though at the end of the essay we are told that Sedaris is able to understand French, however we weren’t told in the essays how Sedaris developed more knowledge and a better understanding of the French language, in this case the change.

 

4- I do not believe that Manson felt the same way that she did in the beginning of the essay compared to the end. Although she didn’t completely resolve her issue, she did grow a lot from the start. Being silent was a way of tongue for Manson whenever she couldn’t put something into words. However, at the end of her essay you could see that being silent is no longer her first option. She is trying to speak, and a perfect example of that is when she states “I said my thoughts, even though they were incomplete. I felt more than that. I always will. But I said what I could, and that was enough”.

Anzaldua disagrees with the theory that there are firm lines between English and Spanish, how one would say that they represent different universes, and that the speakers cannot share a common reality. Anzaldua said, “Chicano Spanish sprang out of the Chicanos’ need to identify ourselves as a distinct people.” In short terms she is saying that Mexican Americans tend to speak a different form of Spanish that sets them apart from everyone else. Chicano Spanish is a version of Spanish that tends to have words distorted by English and it is often frowned upon by native Spanish speakers. According to Anzaldua, Chicano Spanish is known as rebellious and is sort of a secret language.

Anzaldua has a certain style in her literacy narrative that has a larger meaning behind it. The reader may notice that in many instances, she incorporates Spanish into her mainly English narrative. The meaning behind this is to show that there are no firm lines between languages. As she put certain Spanish phrases into her writing, she puts easy to comprehend English translations next to it, and it seems to flow very well. She chose this style of writing to show that languages are just a form of communication, and that it all means the same in your own language.

Liao’s first convention for literacy narratives, the idea of change, was most apparent in Sedaris’s essay. Liao believed that in a literacy narrative, if something dosen’t change, then it is not a narrative. In Sedaris’s narrative I was confused on what the point of it was until the near end, when he finally understood french. That was the point of change. Prior to that moment, he sometimes found himself not understanding what the teacher was saying, and it came out as gibberish in his mind. One of Liao’s conventions for literacy narratives that did not see much light was the idea of a discourse community. In Sedaris’s essay, he stayed on track the whole time and shared his message throughout the writing. He did not go off of track to talk about anything else.

I believe that by the end of Manson’s essay, she felt differently then she did from the start. At the start of her essay, she felt helpless, and had a sense of confusion when it came to expressing her thoughts. At times she was often hiding her emotions because she did not want to make people think that she was sad, but she truly didn’t know what she was. Then Manson began to compare her feelings to metaphors, this helped, but did not entirely fix her situation. She used silence to address her feelings with herself too allow things to process. Throughout her whole essay she felt like nothing was enough, but by the end she finally felt like what she said to her friend was acceptable, allowing her to understand how to convey her feelings to a point where it was, enough.

 

 

Anzaldua disagrees with this idea because she grew up trying to speak both English and Spanish fluently without a foreign accent. She didn’t believe there were entirely “different universes”, she believed that as long as she could speak the language without any trouble, that she could fit in. Her only problem was trying to take pride in her language. It was hard because she felt as if she had to change her “tongue” for English speakers and accommodate their accent rather than vice versa. There was never the idea of uncommon realties between different languages. The quote I found was “I will have my serpent’s tongue- my woman’s voice, my sexual voice, my poet’s voice. I will overcome the tradition of silence.” This aids in explaining why she disagrees with one of the theories of language, simply because her problem wasn’t different universes, it was different accents. 

 

While reading Anzaldua’s piece, I found it very descriptive and personal. The start of the essay includes a description of the dentist getting mad about their tongue getting in the way of cleaning their roots. The introduction ends with “How do you make it [the tongue] lie down?”. Personally, I think this style of detailed memories of the writer’s past helps the readers connect more with the writer and their story. Anzaldua is telling a story of the struggle of learning English while speaking Spanish. In this, she wants the readers to feel “closer” to her by sharing stories of her childhood and how people treated her and her lack of English. 

 

Liao’s convention of “every literacy narrative has a takeaway for the reader” was prominent in this essay. At the end of the essay, the writer states “Understanding doesn’t mean that you can suddenly speak the language.” This means that even if you are capable of translating words, there is more to understanding what people are saying than just their words. The irony in the end of this essay was that no matter how mean the teacher was, the second he understood what the teacher was saying, he wanted them to talk more and more. This is ironic because the teacher was calling him a “fool”, but he wanted to hear more words from them, even if it was bad, because he was finally understanding the language. 

 

Yes and no, I believe she feels better by the end of the essay, yet still has feelings of sadness. Manson’s essay made me feel sad while reading it because of the tone set. The piece didn’t end on a high note about the writer excelling with words and becoming a great speaker, it ended with her grandmother’s death. When reading this, you can’t help but feel bad for the events she is describing. However, just before writing about her grandmother’s death, she comes to terms with her way of expressing herself. She states, “There were times when it was important for me to verbally communicate even if I couldn’t really express myself.” She was able to recognize what would ultimately help her, yet couldn’t accomplish it.