Sunday, September 13, 2015
McWhorter does a better job.
In her essay, "How to take a Wild Tongue," Gloria Anzaldua talks from a very personal place; she wants her audience to relate to her on a personal level. She is Chicano and I am a white guy with no knowledge of Chicanos so, when I read her essay I have a hard time relating to her struggle also, she uses very little hard facts and mainly sticks to telling personal anecdotes of her life as an "unbreakable" mestiza which she writes in and out of Spanish and English. But, on the other hand, when I read McWhorter's essay: "The Cosmopolitan Tongue: The Universality of English" I could see his view-point due to the fact that had had helpful statistics such as the fact that "according to one estimate... 6,000 languages... will likely dwindle to 600." This fact hits me in my chest and brings me over to his side of thinking. His argument is very logical and straightforward so, I would have to say that he, more effectively, proved his point that less language is a sign of the world coming together.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you, the less languages is a sign of the world coming together. McWhorter said "When the culture dies, naturally the language dies along with it. The reverse, however, is not necessarily true." It isn't true when a language dies the culture doesn't go with it. It will bring us closer, a universal tongue would bring us closer by everyone communicating with one another and therefore we would learn so much about different cultures around the world that we would have never known about if we didn't have a universal tongue. The less language we have the more we become whole.
ReplyDeleteI believe that McWhorter also did a better job explaining his opinion. His opinion on the world having a universal language is backed up by some good reasoning. For instance he talks about how language dying is not necessarily a bad thing. People think it is bad because the culture might die with it but he says, "language itself does not correspond to the particulars of a culture but to a faceless process the creates new languages as the result of geographical separation." I agree with that quote because a culture lives with in the people where as a their language is just a means of communication with in a country or province.
ReplyDeleteI disagree, just because Gloria bases her argument off of personal experiences doesn't discredit her claim. Her story is a first hand look at what life was like when people tried to forcibly promote one language over another. When Gloria's school teacher rapped her knuckles for trying to explain how her name was pronounced, how is that a sign of the world coming together? Just because people will speak the same language, doesn't mean that they'll get along.
ReplyDeleteRather than conform to speaking English, the Chicano people made their own hybrid language. Not because English was too hard, but because they were already separated from the rest of the country by a cultural border. Gloria said that it was shameful to be caught listening to Tex-Mex music. Why? If McWhorter's claim that language brings people together is true, then why did these people who at some level speak English, disdain reveling in their culture? Mcwhorter's piece might have some nice words and imagery, but Gloria gives a firsthand account as to why a unifying language doesn't unify people.
While reading your post, you did make some great points. However, I have to disagree with your opinion that McWhorter did a better job providing claims. It is clear that Gloria Anzaldua makes her claims more personal, but that’s what I really connected with. Being mixed (half white and half hispanic) I could easily relate to Anzaldua's story. I remember when I was a little girl in fourth grade a lady at my school asked me if english was my first language. I said yes, because I remembered my mother telling me to say english was my first language so I won't be put in the english learner classes. Anzaldua makes it personal and uses pathos when she quotes 'Who is to say that robbing a people of its language is less violent than war?' This tugs on ones heartstrings which I feel is Anzaldua's goal. Emotions and feelings are powerful and throughout history we can see how its fired people up to protest and fight for what they believe in.
ReplyDeleteI agree in the fact that diversity within the world of language does not always mean more diversity within the culture of the world itself. McWorther points out that the current 6000 languages that exist may drop by ten times to a mere 600, and I do not think this is a bad thing. When a language is lost, it does not mean that the corresponding culture, nor its practices will be lost with it. If anything, it creates a bond between two different peoples who would not have otherwise been able to communicate with one another. This connection between cultures is essential in today's society, where you can call or text anyone in the world in seconds, an ability we did not have just decades ago. Physical boundaries that once existed no longer have to inhibit our ability to reach out to other countries. The only thing holding us back from togetherness, and communication amongst each other on this planet, is ourselves.
ReplyDeleteI agree, like you said she Gloria Anzaldua kept on going in and out of from Spanish to English and this makes it difficult for a ready who does not understand the Spanish language very well. Also, John McWhorter used facts to support what he was saying and was more straightforward which made it easier to for the reader to understand. Anzaldua does make a good point with what she is saying and uses person experience as her main support. The only down side is that not everyone can understand clearly because of the way she writes her essay.
ReplyDeleteI agree, McWhorter's essay: "The Cosmopolitan Tongue: The Universality of English" proves its point more so than "How to take a Wild Tongue," by Gloria Anzaldua. What makes McWhorter's essay that much more convincing than Anzaldu's is the straightforwardness and statistics the author uses. He states that the 6,000 languages that now exist will drop to a number as small as 600, and that this is not harmful to society in any way, it is in fact helpful. In a way it is unifying humanity to intermix languages, cultures, and ideas to create a better way of communication between people of diverse backgrounds.
ReplyDelete