In each of their respective essays, both Tan and Anzaldua use similar forms of rhetoric in trying

to get their point across to their respective readers. However, both are unique in the way in which they
go around in utilizing this rhetoric in the way that they think would bring the essays potential to the
maximum. From both incorporating the aspect of personal experience within their essays, to Tans
experience-based argument and Anzalduas more emotional-based argument, both essays are effective
at utilizing rhetoric in trying to get their point across to the reader.
From the very beginning, Anzalduas How to Tame a Wild Tongue sets an aggressive tone from
the start, making the entire thing feel like she is trying to forcefully press her point onto the readers
rather than draw the readers into her own world. Lines such as Attacks on ones form of expression
with the intent to censor are a violation of the First amendment (Pg. 497) and Wild tongues cant be
tamed, they can only be cut out (Pg. 497) are examples of this aggressive style of writing that so
familiarize her piece of work. Not only that, while talking about her own experiences with Spanish and
how people in her past had been trying to force her to become Americanized, Anzaldua incorporates
untranslated Spanish words within her text (Pa hallar buen trabajo tienes que saber hablar el ingles
bien. Que vale toda tu educacion si todavia hablas ingles con un accent. (Pg. 497) which might seem in
a sense to be a bad move, because it might alienate some readers who do not know Spanish or cannot
understand the flow of writing, but to me it is more of a direct influence of her trying to push her point
by refusing to use English throughout the entirety of her essay and instead replacing some parts of her
own wild tongue. She then goes onto categorize items such as languages within languages (Words
distorted by English are known as Anglicisms or pochismos (Pg. 499) in an attempt to tie in personal
experiences and real-life similarities to add to her argumentative power. In fact, in her aggressive writing
style, Anzaldua goes as far as to suggest that for a language to remain alive it must be usedby the end
of this century English, and not Spanish, will be the mother tongue of most chicanos and Latinos. (Pg.
502). In short, Anzalduas essays rhetoric revolves mainly about the aggressive-pushing stance that she
maintains toward her readers throughout the course of her essay and the point that she is trying to
make about language.
In direct contrast to the tone and style used by Anzaldua in her essay above, Tan adopts more of
a passive-casual tone within her writing. Her essay sets this tone in her very first sentence: I am not a
scholar of English language or literature. I cannot give you much more than personal opinions on the
English language and its variations in this country or another. (Pg. 886) Right away, readers will notice
the strikingly different style and rhetoric that Tan utilizes in her own essay, that more of a writing trying
to make the reader sympathize with her instead of trying to aggressively push her own opinion onto the
reader (in short, trying to draw the reader to the writers point of view instead). Tan utilizes not only her
personal real-life experiences with language (as did Anzaldua), but instead focuses on talking about her
mothers sense of the English language as a whole, providing a contrasting third-person (or outside-
person) look into the English language and the point that she is trying to make within her own essay.
Examples such as her mother describing the powerful and rich gangster boss who came to pay respects
at the wedding (more specifically, the English that the example was written in), help to paint the picture
of what Tan is trying to convey to each and every one of the readers. In short, the reader is drawn into
Tans world and views what she is trying to convey through her own eyes, and starts to see that maybe
her mothers broken English among other items isnt as bad as it might seem. Regardless, Tan does well
to get her point about language in general out to the audience, without the added confusion that
Anzalduas essay had (Tan didnt use untranslated Chinese or something similar like that).
Both essays do a great job in utilizing rhetoric within their work in order to draw the reader to
their point, when ether it is Anzalduas more aggressive style or Tans more conservative one. However,
in my opinion, I believe that Tans rhetoric is just a tad bit more convincing than Anzalduas aggressive
rhetoric because of the feeling that Anzalduas essay is more emotional-driven than Tans essay is, as
well as the fact the usage of untranslated Spanish throughout her essay (which is both a good and bad
thing) might alienate or not leave as much of a desired emphasis on readers who do not understand the
Spanish language. Regardless, both authors make very similar and very different styles and signatures of
rhetoric within their own work and both do a good job in their own distinct style and way of writing
about aspects of language.