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 it 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 (to some readers, but definitely not all of them or even most of them), because it might alienate
some readers who do not know Spanish or cannot understand the flow of writing; 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 forward-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. The
effect of this look can be debated, but I think that she uses it to great effect and it adds more positive
to her 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 (to some members of the audience) 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,
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 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 in trying to make their points.