What function does language have? What role does it play? Can language reflect an individual or even a culture? Can slight changes in diction completely change the meaning? Through history, language has always been the central focus of communication; however, it also entails a factor of influence in the daily lives of not just individuals, but also societies, cultures and communities. In their essays, both, George Orwell and Gloria Anzaldúa, explore language and how it is changing and defining individuals, respectively. Orwell, in “Politics and the English Language,” and Anzaldúa, in “How to Tame a Wild Tongue,” assess language and its implications in different ways. Obviously, however, the biggest similarity between both these expositions
…show more content…
When an author successfully builds his or her credibility, the impact of his or her contentions on the audience is significantly changed. For example, when someone with no qualifications makes a claim or statement, most people readily discredit it. This is due to the fact that the certain individual had nothing that displayed he knew what he was talking about or anything that justified his claims. However, if this same individual was a renowned PhD, many more people would consider his claim before immediately dismissing them. This same sort of concept is applied in argumentative writing. Anzaldúa builds her credibility through a series of firsthand experiences. This is seen when Anzaldúa mentions her “‘home’ tongues [which] are the languages [she] speak[s] with [her] sister and brother…” (169). Clearly, this is a very personal experience. In other cases, Anzaldúa also brings in personal anecdotes: “[a]nd because we are a complex, heterogeneous people, we speak many languages” (169). Here, the usage of we suggests that Anzaldúa is included and thus, it makes it personal and firsthand. From these scenarios, the audience is able to pick up on the fact that Anzaldúa is not only heavily invested, but also speaking with a genuine knowledge. The anecdotes build her credibility because it sends the …show more content…
As for negative diction, its possible impacts are limited; however, these impacts are significant in conveying a certain message to the audience. For example, negative diction can portray a certain issue in a negative light or it can dampen the mood of the piece as a whole. To further this, these impacts can lead to the audience being sensitized. In both essays, the authors implement negative diction in order to paint the issue that he or she is exploring in a negative light. Despite this similarity, Anzaldúa’s usage is more effective due to the fact that it is used in a way that supports her position more successfully. Also, her usage allows for her audience to be more sensitized than Orwell’s usage does. As seen in her exposition, Anzaldúa uses phrases such as “linguistic nightmare, linguistic aberration, culturally crucified, etc…” (171). Clearly, these phrases all have negative connotations along with negative denotations. In context, Anzaldúa includes these phrases in the section sub headed “Linguistic Terrorism.” As a result, the audience is clearly able to pick up on the link between linguistic terrorism (which ties in with the belief that language can oppress people) and its negative nature. Since the audience recognizes this, they realize that
When an author successfully builds his or her credibility, the impact of his or her contentions on the audience is significantly changed. For example, when someone with no qualifications makes a claim or statement, most people readily discredit it. This is due to the fact that the certain individual had nothing that displayed he knew what he was talking about or anything that justified his claims. However, if this same individual was a renowned PhD, many more people would consider his claim before immediately dismissing them. This same sort of concept is applied in argumentative writing. Anzaldúa builds her credibility through a series of firsthand experiences. This is seen when Anzaldúa mentions her “‘home’ tongues [which] are the languages [she] speak[s] with [her] sister and brother…” (169). Clearly, this is a very personal experience. In other cases, Anzaldúa also brings in personal anecdotes: “[a]nd because we are a complex, heterogeneous people, we speak many languages” (169). Here, the usage of we suggests that Anzaldúa is included and thus, it makes it personal and firsthand. From these scenarios, the audience is able to pick up on the fact that Anzaldúa is not only heavily invested, but also speaking with a genuine knowledge. The anecdotes build her credibility because it sends the …show more content…
As for negative diction, its possible impacts are limited; however, these impacts are significant in conveying a certain message to the audience. For example, negative diction can portray a certain issue in a negative light or it can dampen the mood of the piece as a whole. To further this, these impacts can lead to the audience being sensitized. In both essays, the authors implement negative diction in order to paint the issue that he or she is exploring in a negative light. Despite this similarity, Anzaldúa’s usage is more effective due to the fact that it is used in a way that supports her position more successfully. Also, her usage allows for her audience to be more sensitized than Orwell’s usage does. As seen in her exposition, Anzaldúa uses phrases such as “linguistic nightmare, linguistic aberration, culturally crucified, etc…” (171). Clearly, these phrases all have negative connotations along with negative denotations. In context, Anzaldúa includes these phrases in the section sub headed “Linguistic Terrorism.” As a result, the audience is clearly able to pick up on the link between linguistic terrorism (which ties in with the belief that language can oppress people) and its negative nature. Since the audience recognizes this, they realize that