My friend had concluded that if he took his language and culture out of his poetry, he stood a better chance of receiving a fellowship. he took out his native language, the poetic patois of our reality, the rich mixture of spanish, english, pachuco and street talk which we know so well. in other words, he took the tortillas out of his poetry, which is to say he took the soul out of his poetry. which best explains how anaya’s text structure establishes his voice in the excerpt? anaya lists a series of facts about language to support his point of view. anaya explains how to apply for a fellowship to support his point of view. anaya compares his writing to a friend’s writing to support his point of view. anaya relates a story about a poet he knows to support his point of view.

Anaya relates a story about a poet he knows to support his point of view.

In the story Anaya shows how his friend takes his language and culture out of his poetry because his friend thinks that it will give him a better chance. Anaya is showing how people feel that they need to hide their culture in order to be given a chance. Anaya does not compare his writing to his friend's in the excerpt. He doesn't explain how to apply for a fellowship. He doesn't list a series of facts about language either.

he does not belive what the men tell him about the jungle

- "a nonrestrictive clause functions as a modifier to a noun (that is an object, person or concept). these clauses can be described by the following three options: it is set off by comas, it contains a subject and a verbs and it adds nonessential information to the sentence.

for example, in "here is bill gates, who confounded microsoft software company" we can identify "who confounded microsoft software company" as a nonrestrictive clause modifying the noun bill gates. this clause can be describes as a nonrestrictive clause because it is separated by a comma, it adds nonessential information to identify who bill gates is and it must contain both a subject (who) and a verb (confounded)."