by Silas Bradley
The way we communicate is tied directly to our feelings of identity and belonging; however, should that identifying and personal style of communication be suppressed when teaching academic writing? This has been a question of some debate over the past few years as academics have argued the place of personal dialects in writing. “Develop your voice.” This is a phrase we have all heard at some point in our writing classes. Teachers use it as a mantra, repeating it over and over when teaching students to write; however, can this really be their goal as they work to grade and restrict the language students are able to use in their academic writing?
Scholars are divided over how individual dialects should be incorporated in academic writing. One sect believes that English teachers should be conforming their students to one proper style of writing and speaking. A firm believer in this idea is Stanley Fish, who writes in his paper for The New York Times, “What Should Colleges Teach?” that you are “not going to be able to change the world if you are not equipped with the tools that speak to its present condition. You don’t strike a blow against a power structure by making yourself vulnerable to its prejudices,” (3). Here Fish argues that if students are not equipped with proper and standard writing styles they are unable to succeed or make change in the world. This idea that students must leave behind their own dialects and way of communicating in order to succeed is opposed vehemently by writers such as Vershawn Ashanti Young, who argues that “A whole lot of folk could be writin and speakin real, real smart if Fish and others stop using one prescriptive, foot-long ruler to measure the language of peeps who use a yard stick when they communicate,” (4). Students must be allowed to use their language to deliver their message. Though I am inclined to agree with Young’s argument about the importance of dialectic freedom in academic writing, I believe that the answer to this question actually lies in the way we view the purpose of English and writing classes.
I argue that the purpose of English class is to help students better express themselves in whatever manner they feel best suits them, not to conform or confine students within one way of communicating. When grading students’ work, teachers currently search for places where a student is “wrong.” They seek to find places where students have broken the apparent rules that govern their version of the English language. This distracts teachers from what should be their main goal: developing students’ own communication skills, whatever they may look like. The assignments given to students should not be centered around teaching the right way of communicating, instead assignments should be about helping students to write clearly and intentionally, using whatever style best suits them. By spending so much time penalizing students for making mistakes, teachers are unable to spend the time needed to help students craft their own voice.
As Fish correctly argues, in the current climate, students must conform to succeed, at least in an academic setting. Instead of focusing on making their writing the most effective it can be, students hone in on just painting by numbers and doing the bare minimum necessary to ensure that each point on the assignment sheet is hit. This is exactly what I’m doing now as I write this paper for our class; subconsciously I always have one eye on my writing and one on the assignment grading sheet. However, the focus on just securing the points has some disastrous effects on the writing skills of many. After years of being forced into working within the rules, many students become lost when assignments arise that don’t specify clearly the rules and steps needed to get an “A”. They are so used to coloring within the lines of writing assignments that the moment their blinders are lifted they become lost and helpless. By lifting some of these restrictions students can gain a better handle on their own way of communicating. By allowing students to be themselves and hone their way of speaking, we can create a generation of students that are able to communicate effectively in a wide variety of environments.
One important way that this can be achieved is through helping students to gain an appreciation and understanding of the different dialects that surround us. According to professor of linguistics Kirk Hazen, “If people had a better understanding of how language works, they would probably be less inclined to make negative judgments about speakers of different dialects,” (Hazen). I believe that we should spend time appreciating dialects and codes as literary works just like poetry and academic articles. Different dialects and ways of speaking should be explored more fully in English classrooms as a type of literary appreciation. Just like poetry and spoken word, these things should be studied and appreciated as both free ways of expression and as practical ways of crossing discussionary boundaries. To me, it appears hypocritical that teachers can praise the work of poets and spoken word for using “their own voice” and still shun the use of student’s dialects in their work. Now to be clear, academic and creative writing appear to be very different. However, is the distance really that far? Practicing and studying creative writing helps to hone writing and communication skills. If students can gain a mastery of their language creatively, why can’t they use that mastery in their academic work?
Because language is so closely tied to an individual’s identity, it becomes detrimental when one must shed their language to enter and assimilate into a group. According to champion of linguistic rights Dr. Lordes Rouvira, “One repeatedly encounters poignant stories of having to forget one’s language in order to assimilate or acculturate to a new environment. Sadly, this forgetting often includes losing one’s roots,” (66). The connection of identity with language is another reason there is such pushback against conforming to one way of writing. I believe that individuals should be able to keep their identity in their writing. While there are few that truly argue that students should have their individuality stripped from them when entering the writing classroom, at a certain level this nonetheless takes place under the current method of teaching. Students opt to play it safe and forgo going the extra mile to be different and communicate in a way that is uniquely theirs in order to achieve a safer grade.
The heart of the issue as I see it is that the language used by scholars in academic writing is exclusive. Serving as the culmination of some long research, the language used often stands out as needlessly difficult and made to appeal only to those of highly educated backgrounds. Here, the constraints of what is accepted as academic writing and speech can severely hamper the achievements of individuals who use other dialects, such as AAVE, by providing the added hurtle of having to learn another dialect in order to be taken seriously. I see this as a severe loss, because when we maintain the conformity to just one way of expression, we shut out opportunities for many to speak. However, we can make a change. Students should be taught to celebrate their unique voices and use them in the ways that they feel are most effective. If we adapt the way we teach English, supporting students in crafting their voice, we can improve the communication skills of newer generations and give them the power to speak freely.
Works Cited
Fish, Stanley. “What Should Colleges Teach?” New York Times, 7 Sept. 2009.
Hazen, Kirk. “Teaching about dialects.” ERIC Digest. (2001, August 31). Retrieved November 1, 2021, from https://www.ericdigests.org/2002-2/dialects.htm.
Rovira, Lourdes C. “The Relationship Between Language and Identity. The use of the home Language as a Human Right of the Immigrant” REMHU – Revista Interdisciplinar da Mobilidade Humana, vol. 16, núm. 31, 2008, pp. 63- 81
Young, Vershawn Ashanti. “Should Writers Use They Own English?” Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies Volume 12, Edition 1 2010