Cause and Effect Analysis “Why and When We Speak Spanish in Public” p. 506-508
Marquez develops her essay using a specific structure. In a well-developed paragraph, explain Marquez’s organizational structure. Provide at least two specific examples from the essay to support your explanation.
In Why and When We Speak Spanish in Public, Myriam Marquez uses an organizational structure that focuses on one effect with several different causes. The main effect in this editorial is speaking spanish in public. She is giving detail as to why her family might speak Spanish in public, simply because it is comforting. The first cause or why she speaks spanish is, “... it’s a matter of respect for our parents and comfort in our cultural roots” (507). Marquez talks about her father finding it respectful to use their first language. She goes on to say, “It’s certainly not meant to be un-American…” (507). Marquez then goes on to point out another cause for speaking Spanish in public. She writes, “As if talking Spanish...is some sort of litmus test used to gauge American patriotism” (507). Marquez adds this point in the editorial to show that there are more than one cause to the effect of speaking spanish in public. Throughout the editorial she uses a structure with one effect and different causes, that argues why speaking Spanish in public is neither rude or “un-American.”
In a well-developed paragraph, evaluate Marquez’s use of evidence. Why does Marquez cite immigrants from Poland, Finland, Italy, and “wherever else” (10)? Is this evidence sufficient to justify her claim that it’s okay for her family to speak their native language in public? Why or why not? Then provide specific examples of evidence that would be more effective in supporting her claim.
In Why and When We Speak Spanish in Public, Myriam Marquez adds evidence into her editorial in order to make her causes more effective. She talks about the effect then provides three different causes or outcomes that cause the effect. After stating her causes, Marquez throws in evidence that make her causes more effective. She uses examples of immigrants from other countries who have more than likely spoken their native language in public. Marquez says, “I suspect that they spoke among themselves in their native tongue-in public” (507). That piece of evidence she uses is effective because she is making the broad generalization that it is okay for other cultures to use their native language in public. Another piece of evidence is used in her editorial that she is preserving her culture. She says, “Throughout this nation's history, most immigrants...kept their language through the first generation and, often, the second” (507). Marquez is supporting her culture and her right to speak her native language in public. Marquez adds evidence to help support her points and make them more effective to the reader.
Marquez makes a point of saying that immigrants from Latin America have “fought for this country” and “participated fully in this nation’s democracy by voting, holding political office, and paying taxes” (11). In a well-developed paragraph, analyze the potential objection Marquez is anticipating regarding her claim? Evaluate the effectiveness of this strategy?
In Why and When We Speak Spanish in Public, Myriam Marquez makes the point of saying that immigrants from Latin America have “ fought for this country” and “participated fully in this nation’s democracy by voting, holding political office, and paying taxes” because she is anticipating the counter argument (507). After stating her side in the argument she acknowledges the counter argument by proving it wrong. The is an effective strategy because it persuades the reader even more to agree with Marquez. Marquez talks about the contributions made by Latin Americans that have made America what it is today. Marquez writes, “Pennsylvania even provided voting ballots written in German during much of the 1800s for those who weren’t fluent in English” (507). Not only were Latin Americans included in voting as early as the 1800s, but they were accommodated for by some states. She adds in those details to discard the counter argument and is successful because the details make her points come across as more effective in persuading the reader.