Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Heavenlee Almonte
Professor Coy
Think about how one expresses who one is and how we go about it. For most people
language is a way of expressing one’s individuality and everyone has a right to their individuality.
This form of expression can help in the work place and in formal education by unifying people,
giving each person their right, and can characterize a person. In the text How to tame a wild tongue
by Gloria Anzaldúa, the author explains the difficult time she had growing up having to be
pressured to choose a language, Spanish or english. To her both were comfortable. The author
demonstrates that using a person’s home language in formal education or the market place is ones
right, doesn’t set the person apart and is a part of one’s identity.
The way a person identifies is through the way they express themselves, especially through
the language they speak. Being able to express yourself will allow you to help others express
themselves in both formal education and in the work place. To control the way a person talks is to
control their tongue. A person’s tongue is the main form of expression and through expression is
how a person identifies. Anzaldua wonders how a person’s tongue could be tamed or controlled
and says in the text, “And I think, how do you tame a wild tongue, train it to be quiet, how do you
bridle and saddle it? How do you make it lie down?” (33-34). The author uses the words; wild,
bridle, and saddle to demonstrate the way Americans try to restrain non-English speakers. The
definition of wild means “to not be domesticated”. A bridle is “a headgear to restrain horses” and
Almonte 2
animal. To Anzaldúa this is how Americans look at people who don’t speak English or don’t speak
“proper English”. The diction chosen by the author shows the ignorance of Americans who judge
non-English speakers. A women’s identity is also raided by the very language that they speak.
There are many words that only have a masculine plural in the Spanish language, for example
Anzaldúa writes “We are robbed of our female being by the masculine plural. Language is a male
discourse” (35). In the Hispanic culture, men dictate most if not everything a woman does.
Language is a good example of the dictatorship men have over women in the Hispanic culture
because women don’t have the feminine plural. It’s like men took the right of a woman to own
anything, even in something so simple as language. To many this may seem like it’s not much but
language is the way one expresses themselves. By not allowing someone to express themselves
you are taking away their identity and their being. If this isn’t a main form of controlling a person’s
tongue then I’m not sure what is? This language is taught from a young age to many little girls and
to tell them that they can do anything that a man can do and then teach them to speak a man
the work place to fight back on the male plurals and open the eyes of everyone that females are
being subjected to. Everyone tries to speak the language that is the most comfortable to them and
Anzaldúa feels the most comfortable with Chicano Spanish and she explains by saying “A
language which they can connect their identity to, one capable of communicating the realities and
values true to themselves – a language with terms that are neither espanol ni ingles” (35-36). The
way we communicate has a lot to do with what we are comfortable with. Chicano Spanish for most
is a balance of both Spanish and English. This is what these group of people are most comfortable
with and to say that this language is wrong or not accepted is very ignorant. Some people, like
Almonte 3
Anzaldua feel like she doesn’t speak perfect Spanish or perfect English and that’s why her balance
is Chicano Spanish. Who are we to tell someone who identifies with Chicano Spanish that their
language is wrong? Its like telling them that they can longer identify as their true selves.
A person right to language, to accent, to anything is their right from birth and to tell
someone that they no longer have that right is rejecting them to who they are and where they come
from. A person has the right to their name and how their name should be pronounced. Anzaldua
felt a direct attack on her language, on herself and on her accent when the Anglo teacher said “If
you want to be American, speak ‘American’. If you don’t like it, go back to Mexico where you
belong” (34). When telling someone that they can’t correct one on their own name is taking one
right. Everyone has the right to pronounce their name the way they desire because it belongs to
them. Its what they own. The Anglo teacher was taking her right of Anzaldúa’s to say her name
the way she prefers. Of course, not everyone can pronounce some names the way we may want to
but to completely disregard a person because that’s what the Anglo teacher did to Anzaldúa, it is
wrong. If Anzaldúa would have stood up against this injustice this could have opened up the eyes
of people in formal education to not negate someone’s right to their accent that is caused by their
language, this could have been the push in the right direction to open up ignorant peoples eyes.
Anzaldua is constantly set apart from both the Spanish speaking community and the english
speaking community and this has affected the way she sees both communities. Anzaldua knows
both the english and the Spanish language but has always been pressured to pick a side. Anzaldua
mother has pushed her from a young age to be able to get a good job you must speak a certain way,
for example Anzaldúa’s mother said “Pa’hallar buen trabajo tienes que saber hablar el ingles bien.
Que vale toda tu educacion si todavia hablas ingles con un ‘accent’” (34). Translation of the line
Almonte 4
“To find a good job you have to know how to speak good English. Your education is worth nothing
if you speak English with an accent”. Anzaldúa not only has to deal with Americans talking bad
about her English but also her mother puts pressure on her to speak “English without an accent”.
Her mother in a way is setting Anzaldua apart from other English speakers. She doesn’t have faith
that if her daughter doesn’t speak proper English then it will become a problem. But by Anzaldúa
being able to speak English and Spanish is a very good thing because she can use both to her
advantage when at school or at work. both can help her communicate and not only with one group
of people but two groups of people. From other people in her Spanish speaking community she
feels this pressure from them to speak only Spanish and to abandon her english community even
though she feels comfortable speaking both, for example Spanish speakers usually say this to her
“Pocho, cultural traitor, you’re speaking the oppressor’s language by speaking English, you are
ruining the Spanish language” (35). The oppressors are Americans. The people who say this are
Hispanics and are then oppressing Anzaldúa because they are calling her a cultural traitor because
she speaks Spanish. they are setting her apart rather then supporting her and fighting back against
oppressors.
To conclude, in the world of education and the work place language is a person right, a
way to unite people, and to identify and shouldn’t be annihilated by any kind of oppressor. To
Anzaldúa there were two different kind of oppressors, one was the english speakers who wanted
her to speak “proper Spanish” and the Spanish speakers who didn’t want her to speak the
“oppressors’ language”. Anzaldua identifies as an individual that speaks both. Just like Anzaldua
many identify the same way and should and can use their language at work and in formal education
Work cited