Poetry Analysis

Compare and Contrast the ways in which the poets use language and structure to convey the idea of language and identity

Amongst both poems, a sense of pride and dignity is evoked by the speaker as both illustrate their own perception of their language and identity. These themes are displayed very differently and distinctively by use of different poetic devices, upholding a very different atmosphere and meaning regarding their perception of their own language and the way in which it is affected by others.

In Poem 1- by Nayyirah Waheed, the prominent use of caesura accompanied by frequent punctuation is immediately demonstrated in the first stanza, addressing “My english is broken.” followed by the second stanza “On purpose.” By such use of punctuation and caesura, the poet imposes a relatively definitive tone, in relation to the speakers intention of emphasising his english is broken for a reason. The poets intention is to also inform that the english language is interpreted in different ways by people of different culture or ethnicity and that such differences should be essentially valued. This indirectly connotes the speaker’s sense of pride and acknowledgement that his language is authentically different to other forms but is what defines his identity. Punctuation and caesura enhances this statement by making the speaker’s tone bold, clear and definitive, potentially showing resent and bitterness towards those who refuse to accept his true interpretation of english. The feeling of resent is similarly conveyed in stanza 15 when addressing “i have seven different words for love. You have only one. That makes a lot of sense”. It is made clear that the speaker has ultimate honour and dignity for his own language, and comments on the targeted person’s lack of value and recognition towards people of different culture and identity, consequently characterising the individual as a potentially blunt or boring one who has no other variations of language to express love. Hence, it can be denoted that the speakers pride for his identity and language is translated through anger and resent.

Comparatively, in poem 2 by Rupi Kaur, the use of enjambent throughout the whole poem contrarily creates a flow, and open interpretation of language, often connoting more happier, uplifted themes. Lack of abrupt punctuation and caesura imposes a delicate and more uplifted tone, hence showing how the speakers pride is translated through ultimate delicacy, flare and elation.

Both poems also share many similarities. In both poems, a specific person is addressed by “You”, which is commonly repeated throughout both poems, implying that a certain person is addressed or targeted. It can be observed that the people addressed differ vastly in result as of how the tone addressed by the speaker is. Previously established, the tone and register of the speaker appears more definitive and resentful in poem 1 (successfully displayed by use of caesura and punctuation) comparatively to the person addressed in the second poem whom appears less imposing and holds the role of a more neutral yet attentive individual. Both poems are also relatively short, consisting of short stanzas. Short stanzas effectively convey the speakers intention in a concise manner in both of these poems, comparatively to long stanzas which could often cause a burden be overwhelming to comprehend. Both poems written in free verse also give a broad, open interpretation of the speaker’s thoughts and emotions which appears much less restrictive or structured, effective in conveying both of the speakers intentions in both poems. The personification of mouths is common in both poems where the mouth itself is attributed to a particular object. Regardless, the way in which personification is used in both poems evokes a completely different message. In poem 1, the poet addresses “That my mouth is a building room” for the presumed skinny language of english, whereas in poem 2 the mouth is referred to “carrying 2 worlds”. In poem 1, the interpretation of the mouth signifies that the mouth is solely used by others to enforce the use of the socially acceptable “skinny language” and that people who have such skinny language can use it deliberatively upon others who do not, evoking the extent to which social standards and stereotypical perceptions of identity and language are highly selective and exclusive. Whereas in poem 2, the mouth connotes a positive, exquisite perception of multiculturalism and the beauty of being multilingual as it is said to “carry 2 worlds” signifying that both forms of language are so distinctive yet hold so much beauty and authenticity in their own ways. Another use of personification is associated with the meaning of language, as the speaker claims “You presume that i want your skinny language”. Undeniably, this personification of language alludes to the stereotypical ideals and perceptions imposed by modern day society. “Skinny” in this context alludes to the idea of being composed, neat or spotless- presenting the ideal of a perfect person, in which very well does not truly exist. This remark of a “skinny language” is therefore used by the poet to potentially inform and educate the reader about the common stereotypes and unrealistic ideals imposed by society, which lead to utter discrimination and exclusivity towards individuals of different race or colour, and negative perception of identity.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *