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”.
It’s an interesting take to say change wasn’t a strong genre convention in Sedaris’s essay. I agree, the process of learning French wasn’t explained in-depth and it would’ve been intriguing to see that change take place.
I also wrote about how persuasive Anzaldua’s writing is. I totally agree with you that she takes everything she says to heart. Love your answer for number 3- I too believe that the “change” convention was not really involved in Sedaris’s essay.