by Izzy Adler

The English Language has hundreds of dialects and accents which span across the entire world and yet, despite the differences, the idea that a Standard English exists remains prevalent. Standard English continues to be the most widely respected and accepted form of communication in schooling when compared to other dialects such as AAVE. The debate as to whether Standard English should be the primary dialect used when speaking and writing in an academic setting is one which has loud voices on both sides; professional linguists, professors of English and Writing, as well as specific individuals to whom the debate feels incredibly personal continue to struggle in finding a happy medium or ‘correct’ answer to the question of if there is a wrong way to speak or write in English. Jamilla Lyiscott’s TedTalk 3 ways to Speak English represents the struggles, points, and implications of both Code-Switching and Code-Meshing.

Language has intrinsic ties to a person’s identity for the simple reason that it is how humans find their place in a group and feel connected to said, group. The desire to want to belong and to convey oneself is one that all people can understand. The difficulty arises when a person wants to step outside of their group and try to communicate and belong in a new setting. A notable example of this struggle can be found when black students who typically speak and/or write in AAVE are expected to write and speak in Standard English and obey its dialectical rules when in academic settings. These students are taught, either outrightly or subliminally, that their normal way of communicating is incorrect and should be forgotten either entirely or at the least while they are in school. The act of entirely adapting one’s speech or writing to fit the situation that a person finds themself in is called Code-Switching. However, there is a more recently developed term called ‘Code-Meshing’ which describes selecting terms and phrases to use in sentences based on which will convey the most clear and effective communication, regardless of dialect. This term allows for far more linguistic flexibility for those that do not use Standard English as their primary dialect. Code-Meshing allows those that speak non-Standard English to be more authentically meanwhile Code-Switching censors the message the speaker/writer is attempting to convey. Jamilla Lyiscott states in her Ted Talk 3 Ways to Speak English that she has “decided to treat all three of [her] languages as equal because [she’s] ‘articulate’” (Lyiscott 1:12). In Lyiscott’s verbal demonstration of her command over the dialects which she speaks, she also demonstrates the mental acrobatics which are needed in order to flip between said dialects. She states that she has been told she is ‘articulate’ for her ability to recognize her audience and adjust. She proclaims, “I speak three tongues. One for each home, school, and friend” (Lyiscott 2:29). Each one of her ‘tongues’ serves a purpose and helps her to connect to others.

The actual Ted Talk by Lyiscott is an example of Code-meshing, while the topic of the Talk is one Code-Switching. Lyiscott’s speech shows how she can mix and move through her different dialects all within the piece without it becoming incomprehensible. In her Talk Lyiscott says “Sometimes I fight back two tongues while I use the other one in the classroom. And when I mistakenly mix them up, I feel crazy- like I’m cooking in the bathroom” (2:39). This is a description of Switching and demonstrates how she perceives her other two dialects to be unfit for an academic setting because they are not Standard English. Stanley Fish argues that “You’re 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 prejudice.” To Fish, it is necessary to speak and write in Standard English to better advocate for oneself and understand as well as participate in the current world. Because of Fish’s ideas regarding the imperativeness of communicating in Standard English and leaving other dialects at home or with friends, he is advocating for Code-switching and thus would likely commend Lyiscott’s ability to conform to Standard ideals of academic communication.

However, as stated before, not all agree with the necessity of Code-Switching. Melissa Dennihy an assistant professor of English at Queensborough Community College, City University of New York whose research in multi-ethnic literature has been published many times argues, “Although some consider it an acceptable or even progressive practice, code-switching is a discriminatory language policy. It ranks Standardized English as more valuable than other language varieties…” Dennihy makes the point that asking students to Code-switch instills in them the idea that their natural way of speaking is something that should be hidden away or be ashamed of. She goes on to say, “We do not tell students to accept racial or ethnic discrimination as “just how it is,” so why would we give such a response with regard to linguistic discrimination? Blaming the working world is not a fair answer, either” (Dennihy). This particular argument is in direct contrast to Fish’s claim that people must speak and write in the way those in power do in order to ‘strike a blow against a power structure’. However, compared to Lyicott’s argument, it is far more nuanced. Lyiscott does not feel shame about the fact that she speaks two other dialects apart from Standard English. She treats her three ‘three tongues as equal’. Lyiscott has learned to be a chameleon and adapt her tongue to the situation. However, she does admit to struggling to adapt; sometimes she worries she might “[cook] in the bathroom” (2:45). There are times when Lyiscott does not switch and her dialect is made to feel out of place. This introduces the idea of Code-Meshing, of weaving a person’s multiple dialects together to convey a message most authentically.

Vershawn Ashanti Young describes Code-Meshing as “blend[ing] dialects, international languages, local idioms, chat-room lingo, and the rhetorical styles of various ethnic and cultural groups in both formal and informal speech acts” (114). Young advocates for the weaving of dialects in all settings and the retirement of the idea that there is only one dialect which should be used in schools. Young’s argument is that writing, and speech should be conducted for the purpose of successful communication of emotion or ideas and should not be regimented with rules which further promote division among those attempting to connect. Young asks, “so, what happen when peeps dont meet the dominant language rules? Well, some folks can get away with not meeting those rules while others get punished, sometimes severely, for not doing so” (112). Young demonstrates his control and understanding of the message he is writing about through his own use of Code-messing in the article. Lyiscott’s own speech similarly depicted the act of Code-meshing. Both Young and Lyiscott’s pieces gained an immense amount of honesty and authenticity through the mixing of the writers’ multidialectal word and phrase choices.

Humans have a natural ability to speak and make sound. Meanwhile, writing skills are unnaturally occurring. Despite these differences in the accessibility of the two forms of communication, both are judged with the same harsh and regimented ideals of what is correct and what is acceptable. Humans speak to convey their thoughts and identity; by restricting the words and parts of a person that they are allowed to share, that person is effectively silenced. It is not necessary to entirely forgo the rules of Standard English and remove its place in academic spheres. But rather, schools need to finally start adapting themselves and allow students to show themselves in their writing. Code-meshing offers the opportunity for multidialectal students to use their own words to share their thoughts. As Jamilla Lyiscott said: “This is not a promotion of ignorance. This is a linguistic celebration.” So long as the divergences from Standard English do not impede the reader’s understanding of the writer’s argument or points the piece should be allowed to remain as the writer wrote it. If a word or phrasing choice hinders the clarity of the argument, a discussion should be held between the writer and the teacher. Writing and speaking should be done in the voice of those who wish to be heard.

Work Cited:

Young, Vershawn Ashanti. “Should Writers Use They Own English?” Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, Vol 12, Issue 1, 2010. Pp. 110- 118.

Fish, Stanley. “What Should Colleges Teach?” New York Times, 2009.

Dennihy, Melissa. “Beyond English: Linguistic Diversity in the College English Classroom.” MELUS, Volume 42, Number 4, Winter 2017. Oxford University Press.

Lyiscott, Jamilla. “3 ways to speak English.” TED, June 2014.

by Makenna Stone

So like I dunno how you guys speak but um, I know its different then like most of the way you guys speak down here. While I think about all this stuff, could I get a pop? Yeah, I say pop. It’s definitely not soda. Oh, you can’t help me because you’re eating chicken bog, hitting the lights, and mashing the buttons? Ah, gotcha. Moving to the south changed my world. It expanded my horizons far beyond the small-town, Indiana farm culture I grew up in. Though I first believed the people around me all had the accents, I quickly came to realize that I was the stranger to their culture. It was me who had the accent. Not only did I have the midwestern accent, but I also embodied the midwestern dialect. The phrases, words, and sayings are part of my vocabulary, and they followed me to the south. My midwestern dialect penetrated the southern culture, dialect, and accent. Dialects are present within every language due to regional and cultural differences. Theses dialects and respective cultures must, therefore, be recognized within the educational world to teach students about cultural appreciation. However, due to the formalities required in academic writing, dialects, regardless of race, should not be present in academic pieces.

Dialects are variations of their foundational language. Because they are variations, they not only follow similar grammatical rules, but they also have their own forms of slang and colloquial phrases that should not be present in formal writing. Formal writing constitutes pieces designated for the business, legal, scientific, and academic worlds that removes personal connections and voice of the author from the writing. On the contrary, informal writing constitutes pieces that thrive based on the author’s voice and connections being present in writings used for entertainment, academics, or personal use. Informal writing can also contain colloquial diction such as slang, but formal writing tends to avoid it. Because both formal and informal writings can occur in academic settings such as educational institutions, controversy has begun to occur over when it is appropriate to include formal aspects of dialects within academic pieces. In this case, distinctions must be maintained within various contexts and situations. Creative writing classes, for example, should celebrate formal aspects of all dialects as they enhance writings to include the author’s voice; however, writings in science labs should maintain an unbiased, neutral tone that avoids including the author’s voice. If personal feelings are included in formal pieces such as science labs, then a biased tone could come across and result in decreased credibility. The intended audience of said pieces is key to understanding whether dialects should be present in the writing. Clear and concise writings allow readers to understand the points the author is trying to make (Verblio). Once the author identifies the audience, then he or she may proceed to make a well-informed decision as to include his or her dialect in the writing.

Because the dialect controversy occurs within educational settings, sometimes writers must conform to the rubric of an educator. Such rubrics tend to be based around Standard English, as it is a unified, formal version of English that does not include dialects; therefore, it can be a unifying form of writing that all English-speakers understand. Because it is heavily modified and regulated to sound formal, English-speakers generally do not speak in Standard English, but rather their own dialects. Therefore, no specific dialect is being prioritized within formal or academic pieces. All dialects have been modified over time and throughout regions. In Stanley Fish’s article, he supplies the reasoning behind the CCC resolution for student’s language rights within educational institutions. He explains the “theoretical argument (that) linguistic forms… are not God-given; they are the conventional products of social/cultural habit and therefore none of them is naturally superior or politically ‘correct.’” (Fish 2) Once again, though all dialects should be considered equal, the context and audience of the piece should determine whether dialects are used at all. It is not a matter of using one dialect and discriminating against another, it is deciphering when it is beneficial to include a dialect in the piece to begin with.

Some may argue that educational institutions, by forcing students to abide by Standard English, are dismissing the cultural and social significance and personal empowerment that comes with affirming their natural dialects. Regardless of race, forcing any student to abandon a part of his or her-self for the sake of others is a problem that necessitates a remedial action. Standard English educators and classes already have a large curriculum that must be taught though, so a potential solution could be a linguistic diversity class that teaches various dialects. The class would also allow schools to promote dialect diversity within these unique classes while simultaneously teaching formal writing practices in Standard English classes. A class such as this would work to combat the implicit judgement that Standard English is better when non-standard English is corrected, as Qamar Shafiq explains in his blog “Why I Insist on Standard English in My Classroom.” He notes that “This is not a complicated issue to address. I think students should be made aware there are certain circumstance where non-standard English is appropriate, but that in the classroom it is more appropriate to speak in standard English” (Shafiq). Schools should continue to teach Standard English as formal writing, but also have dialect classes that teach the rules behind certain dialects. The class could not only teach the rules, but it could also teach about the cultures that various dialects stem from. Simultaneously, the class will increase the proficiency of code-switching for both students and teachers, “I think,” Shafiq writes, “we undermine the intellectual capacity of our students that prioritizing standard English means to undermine non-standard English. Students are perfectly capable of code-switching.” Any essay assignments within the class could be written in the student’s choice of dialect, so long as it abides by the formal rules of the dialect. Teachers could go to professional development to better understand the general rules of the dialects; therefore, both students and teachers would be gaining linguistic skills from other dialects. All teachers, regardless of their own race, can attend the professional development to further enhance their teaching methods and understanding of a variety of dialects. Once dialects become widely accepted and understood, then the attitudes Vershawn Young talks about in his article, “Should Writers use They Own Language,” will change. Young claims that negative views toward people who speak in their natural dialects and languages, not the language they are speaking, creates oppression (Young 110). However, if the attitudes toward others begin to shift, then the vulnerability to prejudice that Young speaks of will begin to shift as well.

The controversial topic of the presence of dialects in formal and academic pieces of writing depends on context. Writing is not a subject considered to be “black or white,” but rather a gray area that is up to interpretation from both writer and reader. Because of its gray nature, the presence of dialects requires writers to create a non-traditional solution with compromise from all sides. Writing is the physical form of personal expression. Though there are certain circumstances that require the absence of dialects, discrimination against dialects without purpose creates a negative atmosphere for writers around the world. So, I guess from here I’d say to watch the context, read the room, and write in a way that shows appreciation for all people.

Works Cited

Fish, Stanley. “What Should Colleges Teach? Part 3.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 8 Sept. 2009, opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/what-should-colleges-teach-part-3/. Accessed 27 October 2021.

Shafiq, Qamar. “Why I insist on standard English in my classroom.” tes, 13 September 2020, www.tes.com/news/why-i-insist-standard-english-my-classroom. Accessed 1 November 2021.

Verblio. “Do You Write the Way You Speak? Here’s Why Most Good Writers Don’t.” Do Write The Way You Speak? Here’s Why Most Good Writers Don’t, Medium, 22 Jan. 2016, medium.com/@blogmutt/do-you-write-the-way-you-speak-here-s-why-most-good-writers-don-t-547a53548e26. Accessed 27 October 2021.

Young, Vershawn Ashanti. “Should Writers Use They Own English.” Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, Volume 12, Issue 1, 2010, pp 110-118.

by Julia Rhyne

Over the past ten years, code-switching has evolved in many places into code-meshing. Whether it is switching between two languages while talking to your best friend who shares the language, or changing the way you talk to a professor versus social media, code-meshing is a huge part of many people’s everyday lives and it is important to understand what it is, and how to be open-minded to everyone’s identity. In Vershawn Young’s article titled, “Should Writers Use They Own English?”, he debunks a previous article by Stan Fish about why there is only one correct way to speak and write to get ahead in the world. Young discusses how wrong this is, and how everyone should not be afraid to use their own language, dialect, or personality when speaking and writing. He basically says in general that teachers should not limit people to standard English, and people should not be limited to code-switching, but should be more comfortable utilizing code-meshing, which is becoming more and more true today.
After browsing through many articles from the last couple of months, I saw how prevalent code-meshing is becoming in relation to code-switching, and a lot of that has to do with the fact that Young and others like him put articles out there and took a stand on this issue. In one specific article entitled, “Code-Switching and Assimilation in STEM Culture”, the author talks about using code switching and reverse stereotypes in academia. They mention the fact that code-switching has shifted recently to not only using two or more languages at a time, but now to “the changes in speech, appearance, and behaviors by an individual to adjust to the norms of the dominant culture in a given space” (Morales). The author of this article is definitely referring to many of the same aspects Young talked about in his article, such as the fact that code-meshing is part of self-identity and a better way to speak and write rather than code-switching. This is a huge issue especially today, and having people out there who understand and realize that code-meshing is important to understand and accept, is a big part of how Young’s ideas have developed over the past years. When he wrote this article, it was not as prevalent to talk about such “sensitive topics” in race, ethnicities, and cultures.
After researching more on professors who agree that code-meshing is important to understand and accept, I found an article by Raghad Y. Alkhudair, a professor at Qassim University in the English department in Saudi Arabia called, “Professors’ and Undergraduate Students’ Perceptions and Attitudes Toward the Use of Code-Switching and Its Function in Academic Classrooms”. This article was so interesting because it addressed code-switching in the classroom, but not only being used by the students. He talked about using code-switching and even more importantly code-meshing in the classroom especially in today’s time, and in Saudi Arabia, by both students and lecturers (Alkhudair). Even though in an English class in Saudi Arabia, it makes sense that there would be switching between English and Arabic, however since many people in Saudi Arabia already speak English, it is fascinating to see that Professor Alkhudair is open to letting students mesh languages, dialects, and even do it himself. I could tell from his article that him allowing students to be open about their dialects and language in the classroom helped them feel more comfortable and more validated. This example seems like a huge jump right from Young’s article. In his article, he says, “Everybody mix the dialect they learn at home with whateva other dialect or language they learn afterwards” (Young). After reading this article first and then finding people who utilize the opinions in this text, it is apparent to me that people even all the way across the world have used this text and taken action on the issue in schools of code-switching to meshing.
While the classroom is a prime example of where code-meshing can be used and taught, the idea has even spread to politics. “Political Discourse Analysis: A Case Study of Code Mixing and Code Switching in Political Speeches”, is an article by the authors Dama Sravani, Lalitha Kameswari, and Radhika Mamidi, who are from India and found that code-switching and meshing have become huge topics in political speeches especially in India, since India is such a multilingual country with many different political ideologies. I thought this was so interesting as a turn away from the classroom and teaching, and focusing on how people have taken the ideas of previous teachers such as Young and used them in political speeches in India. While there are similarities here to the classroom setting such as proper language for political speeches and teaching styles and being appropriate, it was fascinating to read about three separate speeches given in India, all that used code-switching and meshing in different ways. For example, in one of the political speeches about creating a new state in India, the speaker said, “mIru ganaka commitment won tIskunte, Yes sir come on let us move annAru” (Sravani, Kameswari, Mamidi). To me, this sentence makes no sense, especially out of context and with words thrown in from a language I don’t speak. This is one of the examples of how this speaker meshed English and Telugu/Hindi in the middle of (their) sentence. The audience of these speeches were usually native speakers of the language being used and switched between. Therefore the use of code-meshing in these speeches is so crucial to help the audience feel like they are valued and they can understand the speaker even better. Important people, especially in politics, like to appeal to their target audience, so this is helpful for them to get votes and/or help them connect to more people in that way. In India, like many other places in the world, this has become normalized especially in the past ten years. I think if Young saw this article and/or heard these speakers, he would be impressed at how times have changed and people have adjusted away from code-switching to code-meshing.
Vershawn Ashanti Young definitely had an impact on writers, teachers, and politicians all over the world, in his article “Should Writers Use They Own English?”. Whether it was Young himself who inspired these people to feel comfortable talking and writing in their own dialect or meshing languages whenever they feel necessary, or other previous articles and/or teachers in the past– there has been change. Ten years ago, if a teacher counted off points for “incorrect” grammar on a personal narrative, regardless of the language or country, there wouldn’t have been much notice or care because code-meshing was not as prevalent– it was there, but not such an issue as in today’s society. Today if the same thing happened, it would most likely, or at least should be brought to their attention that it was a personal choice and is ok to do. Young’s inspiring article about, and using, code-meshing was certainly a green light for many people who didn’t feel comfortable enough to express their own dialect and language without discrimination. This world we live in is not black and white, so language should not be either.

Works Cited
Alkhudair, Raghad. Professors’ and Undergraduate Students’ Perceptions and … 13 Oct. 2019, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/42eb/de99a3ae5fcc77be6e7c23852bdd1248aa68.pdf.

A. Morales, C. L. Walker. “Code-Switching and Assimilation in Stem Culture.” Eos, 28 Sept. 2021, https://eos.org/opinions/code-switching-and-assimilation-in-stem-culture.

Sravani, Dama, et al. Political Discourse Analysis: A Case … – Aclanthology.org. 11 June 2021, https://aclanthology.org/2021.calcs-1.1.pdf.

Young, Vershawn Ashanti. “Should Writers Use They Own English?” Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2010.

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

by Greer Phillips

The debate as to whether or not people should write in the style they speak has been going on for many years. While this debate can be argued using formal vs informal language, many people see it as a debate of race and the acceptance of all dialects. While I chose to acknowledge this part of the debate, I will focus more on informal and formal writing and the idea of writing how we speak. Many people believe that formal writing should be the main form of writing taught in schools so that students can learn how to communicate well in higher academic and professional environments. However, many other people also believe that teaching students to adhere to grammar and vocabulary rules takes away the student’s opportunity to put their unique voice into their writing, as they can do when speaking. Members of the writing community, which is everyone who can write, are often pressured to pick the side of the debate they support and to stick with it; however, the solution might just fall in the middle ground.

For me, it wasn’t until college that I was encouraged to write some of my papers in a more informal style. Every English class I have taken up until this point has been strictly grammar and vocabulary focused; instilling in me that writing is supposed to be formal and to be formal it must adhere to standard English rules. Because of this, if you listened to me talk and then read one of my papers, you may not be able to tell that it is the same person. When I write, my vocabulary seems to expand far beyond the vocabulary I have when I speak; even when I try to speak formally, it does not compare to my writing. Since I learned to write, I have been repeatedly told to use bigger vocabulary words, adhere to proper grammar, and follow a specific structure, which has led me to write more formally. When I am speaking, however, no one is constantly telling me to do these things which is why I speak so much differently than I write. By teaching me to write formally, past teachers have taught me to view writing as a skill that takes years of practice to become great. 

One reason formal writing is taught in schools is because it helps students to excel in their future academic careers as well as further into their professional careers. Formal writing makes the writer appear to be well educated, organized, and confident in their topic which is why it is most commonly used in academic and professional settings. Academically, students must display knowledge of their topic and typically must also follow grammar rules to get good grades which is why formal writing is beneficial. This helps to provide students with practice writing formally so when it matters, in professional settings, they have the skills to write in this style effectively. Professionally, it is important to write formally to show respect to your superiors and, as discussed before, to appear well educated, organized, and confident in your topic so that it could benefit your professional advancement. Employers often prefer well-spoken and intelligent people in higher-up positions, so writing formally can help you to appeal to the qualities their employer may be looking for. Most successful people, who may be your competition for higher-up positions, are already well equipped with the skills to write formally. Being able to speak to the higher-ups using the language they use can make you a more favorable candidate and allow you more power to pursue and share your ideas. This helps to explain Stanley Fish’s quote “[y]ou’re not going to be able to change the world if you are not equipped with the tools that speak to its present condition.” Being able to speak in a way that matches your surroundings can help your ideas advance over others and give you more success.

So what is formal writing? To me, formal writing can be described as standard English. One important characteristic of formal writing is vocabulary. When writing formally, it is important to refrain from using slang and to use sophisticated vocabulary words. As discussed earlier, this helps to achieve one of the many purposes of formal writing which is to appear intelligent and it also prevents the reader from misunderstanding words that, since they are slang, may not be easily found in a dictionary. Another characteristic my teachers spent a lot of time teaching me was proper grammar and punctuation. By using these two things, the writer is not only making themselves appear more knowledgeable, but they are also making it easier for the reader to understand. Another important thing to do when writing formally is to avoid the use of first and second-person pronouns. In formal writing, it is often important to refrain from talking about yourself by using pronouns such as “I” and “we” so that the piece can remain objective (Love2Edit). It is also important to avoid pronouns that include the reader, such as “we” and “you”, since the statements you are including the reader in may not apply to the them. To look at the overall picture, all formal writing also typically follows a similar structure. Formal writing starts with an introduction and ends with a conclusion and the body paragraphs that fall between are meant to provide information on the topic. Formally written paragraphs tend to have supporting evidence and can often be quite long in length. Formal writing also needs to have a nice flow so there must be transitions between each paragraph and the paragraphs should be arranged in an order so that the information can be easily understood. That means that, for example, if the writer was discussing a series of events, it might be best to arrange the discussion of these events in chronological order. These, while they are only some, are, what I believe, the most important characteristics of formal writing. Having this many rules is what makes writing an art; without practice and knowledge of the rules of formal writing, it can not be done well.

While formal writing is a very important skill to have, informal writing is equally important. As I discussed prior, much of my writing education has focused on formal writing. This has made it challenging for me to adapt to situations where it may be beneficial or even necessary for me to write informally. I often find myself struggling to refrain from using large vocabulary words and writing in long structured sentences. Many teachers start by teaching students to write informally before they write formally. This allows students to grow more confident and to be less intimidated by all the rules formal writing has (“Students May be Intimidated”). Informal writing is overall more casual and has fewer rules. While punctuation and grammar are still important, the vocabulary used is much more relaxed. Many informal writing pieces include slang so that they are popular among specific crowds. Informal writing pieces also possess a much more casual structure which can be seen through the shorter sentences and paragraphs This makes informal writing much easier, for most people, to write as well as to read. While informal writing may not always be acceptable to use in academic or professional settings, there are many settings where informal writing excels over formal writing. Informal writing is often necessary for writing commercial scripts, advertisements, flyers, and many more things. This is because informal writing does not take as long for the reader to understand or read due to its shorter length and more casual vocabulary so it makes things it may be advertising more appealing. While informal writing does not consist of as many rules or is as structured as formal writing, it is still equally important.

Now, onto the debate of writing as we speak. Most people, including myself, often speak informally, so if people were to truly write how they speak, there would be very few works of formal writing. Although people may write informally, which can be similar to how they speak, very rarely do people actually write exactly how they speak. If you were to close your eyes and only listen to a person speak, it would likely be confusing since people often mess up, backtrack, or do not always clearly convey what they mean. This means, if it were written it would be very confusing to readers due to the common mistakes people make when speaking. Two reasons that it’s not confusing when people speak directly to us is because we can ask questions and we are also able to read their facial features and body gestures to get a better understanding as to what the speaker is trying to portray; two things we are not able to do when we read a piece of work (Cline). As I have discussed throughout the entirety of this blog, there are times to write informally and there are times to write formally. To excel academically or professionally, it is necessary for people to be knowledgeable of standard English and to have the ability to write well formally. Being able to portray oneself as being intelligent is very important for advancing one’s ideas in the workplace, but the same intelligence cannot always be portrayed through informal writing. However, as I also discussed previously, there are times where informal writing is beneficial and appeals more to popularity. With informal writing, the author has more freedom to write how they would speak by using slang and other unique stylistic choices. This illustrates that while some people may argue that people should write how they speak, the true answer is that while it is important to be comfortable writing how we speak, informally, we must also have the ability to shift to formal writing when it is called for.

Formal writing is an important skill all students should be taught to help them in their future academic and professional careers; however, it is equally important that students are taught to be comfortable writing informally. Being able to switch between writing as we speak, informally, and writing in a way that appears more well thought out and intelligent, formally, can help people become more successful in every aspect of their lives.

Works Cited

Cline, Casey. “Do You Write the Way You Speak? Here’s Why Most Good Writers Don’t.” Verblio, 17 May 2017, https://www.verblio.com/blog/write-the-way-you-speak. Accessed 8 Nov. 2021.

Fish, Stanley. “What Should Colleges Teach Part 3.”  New York Times, 7 Sep. 2009, https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/what-should-colleges-teach-part-3/. Accessed 8 Nov. 2021

Love2Edit. “The Importance of Formal Writing.” Servicescape, 17 Dec. 2010, https://www.servicescape.com/blog/the-importance-of-formal-writing. Accessed 8 Nov. 2021.

“Students May be Intimidated by Writing and Lack Confidence in Their Abilities.” Carnegie Mellon University, Eberly Center, https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/solveproblem/strat-cantwrite/cantwrite-05.html. Accessed 8 Nov. 2021.

by Mary Hughes Lawrence

Code meshing and code switching are very similar and are both used in society every day.  Code switching is changing the way you speak, behavior, and appearance in order to “fit in” and be respected. Code switching is used all the time and you do not even realize it, there is a difference in the way you talk to your professors than how you talk to your friends, that is code switching. Vershawn Ashanti Young describes code meshing as “the new code switching; it’s multidilectalism and pluarlingualism in one speech act, in one paper.” Through Fish and Young’s essays the questions are posed on whether to just teach standard english in classrooms or to incorporate other languages into the classroom. What would this look like and how would teachers do this? Teachers should encourage the use of different languages and not be too strict when grading. Teachers need to expose students to different kinds of writing and ways of talking and not enforce standard english. This will be a challenge for teachers but students will adapt very quickly. 

AAVE is African American Vernacular English, also known as Black English. While this is not the only type of language or dialect that teachers should begin to teach and explore, this is the main one. Many people already speak and understand this language whether this was the first or second language they learned. In an article about using Black English as a bridge to Standard English by Samuel A Perez it talks about a district in California where Black English was named as the dominant language. Teachers in this district used techniques using Black English to teach standard english. While Standard English is still being taught and primarily used in the district the use of Black English is not completely tossed out the window. Teachers need to understand the rules and are knowledgeable about Black English to be able to use this to teach Standard English in a respectful way. Students also need to be willing to learn a new way of speaking which could benefit them for the rest of their lives. I agree with what is being taught in this California district, while it would be ideal to not have Standard English as the standard, I think this is a really hard goal to achieve and will take a long time. Allowing students to use their primary language (Black English) and then teaching Standard English based on that I think is very effective and does not shame Black English. Instead of introducing the language since it is already known by most of the population they start with Black English and then transfer over to Standard English. 

Many people wonder if we should encourage the use of different languages and different ways of speaking at school. Many people have their school or professional voice and then a home voice.  Fish argues to mix these two different languages together through code meshing. In an article by Sarah Dalmas Jonsberg she talks about her encounter with students who spoke both Standard English and Black English. In the article she says “They did not respect the Black English they could speak so fluently.” Black English is often looked down on because it is not the standard way of speaking in society so these students are probably ashamed of their language.  In school Standard English has been forced down our throats, using another language or dialect was completely out of the question. Using your preferred way of speaking should not be looked down upon. There are times when Standard English can be beneficial, getting a job, writing scientific papers, ect., but teaching code meshing in school can change this.  In school it is taught to use standard english, we write, talk, and read in standard english throughout the school day. It will be a challenge for teachers to adjust because the standards have been the same for so long. Introducing articles, books, and videos that use code meshing or AAVE all together would be very effective in introducing this language and encouraging the use of it. 

Teachers were taught the same thing everybody else was in school about using standard English, so they are probably just as unsure of different languages as other people. When grading assignments where students have used code meshing and code switching teachers need to think about their grading so there is not an unfair advantage. Every language has a set of rules. Teachers should educate themselves on the different rules so people do not have an unfair grading advantage. If the teacher is still confused after looking through the rules, they should call the student who wrote it and ask them to explain what they do not understand. In an article by Rebecca Wheeler, Kelly B Cartwright, and Rachel Swords they talk about how students may be inaccurately assessed if teachers confuse dialect influences with reading errors. The article discusses how a teacher read The Cajun Night Before Christmas, while she is not used to this type of writing she was able to voice the Stand English equivalent of the words. While she was not used to this language she was able to adapt her language to the words she was reading and was able to read it in a way that made sense to her. Students are the same way, but instead of converting to Standard English they convert to AAVE or the way they are used to talking. Teachers should be able to pick up on if students are using dialect substitution or if they are actually making a writing error. 

Students who are not fluent or students who have not been around different dialects and languages can be exposed to these things in a variety of ways. Teachers can introduce new readings to the class that use different forms of writing, students can watch videos or movies and will be able to pick up on the language change. In a younger classroom students can draw pictures and tell the class a story in their dialect. Not only does this expose students to different kinds of languages and dialects it also gives the students more confidence in their language and they are not forced to not use it.  

In an article by Rebecca Wheeler, Kelly B Cartwright, and Rachel Swords they discuss factoring in AAVE in assessments and instructions. They discuss how reading assessments are designed for students to comprehend and decode standard english. The results on how students do this places them into a reading category. Teachers need to be able to understand the difference between dialect substitution and reading errors. Teachers need to understand the rules of different languages so students are not being “punished” for not speaking, reading, or writing in standard english. An example given in this article is, “First, Rajid successfully read the word wolves. Having seen and comprehended the meaning, he substituted the equivalen spoken form from his dialect, “woof.”” Rajid did not make a reading error, instead he substituted in his dialect. Teachers need to be able to understand the distinction between errors and substitutions in order to accurately grade and assess students. This could be a challenge because it is very time consuming to sit down with each individual student and assess them. If teachers do not take into consideration reading errors vs dialect substitutions the child may suffer through their school career and into adulthood. This is a very important issue that does need to be addressed but I do think it will take a long time to get the ball rolling on change. 

Exposing students to other languages and dialects through videos, books, and articles can be extremely useful not only to the students but to the teacher as well. The use of code meshing and code switching in schools will be very effective if other professional places adopt this concept. Standard English is the standard because that is all that has been accepted in the past. I think code meshing should be used and encouraged in schools, but students also still need to be able to understand and use Standard English. While schools may be able to adapt to this change quickly I do not think other professional settings will be as welcoming to this idea.

Perez, S. A. (n.d.). Using Ebonics or Black English as a Bridge to Teaching Standard English. College of Charleston Libraries Off-Campus Access. Retrieved November 9, 2021, from https://web-p-ebscohost-com.nuncio.cofc.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=6&sid=fdcf65ad-530e-4bf7-9e4b-b9dd102b63ac%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=4786967&db=a9h. 

Wheeler, R., Cartwright, K. B., & Swords, R. (n.d.). Factoring AAVE Into Reading Assessment and Instruction. College of Charleston Libraries Off-Campus Access. Retrieved November 9, 2021, from https://web-p-ebscohost-com.nuncio.cofc.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=5&sid=1eaee79b-37d5-4db9-8410-104d8584c6a2%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=72368266&db=a9h. 

Johnsberg, S.D. What’s a (White Teacher) to do about Black English? JSTOR. Vol. 90, No. 4. March 2001. Pp 51-53. Retrieved November 9, 2021, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/821902 

Young, V.A. Should Writers Use They Own English? Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies.Vol 12, Issue 1. 2010. Retrieved November 9, 2021.

Fish, S. What Should Colleges Teach? New York Times. September 7, 2009. Retrieve November 9, 2021

by Olivia Harmon

The debate regarding writing style and the usage of code-meshing within classrooms has been widely discussed over the years. Vershawn Ashanti Young prompted the conversation surrounding this topic in 2010 with his academic article “Should Writers Use They Own English?” that we discussed in class, in which he contrasted Stanley Fish’s argument that writing and literature teachers should concentrate on the framework of standard written English and discourage the usage of different dialects within the classroom. I believe that it is important for students to be exposed to a variety of dialects through diverse literature teachers and texts written outside of standard written English. Different forms of English should be studied and appreciated in schools as a form of self-expression, in addition to learning to respect the cultures from which these dialects derive from. Students can utilize formal language while still incorporating the unique way that they talk into their writing. I would argue that the central purpose of the English classroom setting is not to restrict students to a singular way of communicating, but rather to encourage students to better express themselves and their identity through writing. 

There has been an increase in language diversity within literature studies in recent years (Tardy, 634). Literature teachers have the ability to enact change in the classroom through exposing students to multilingualism and code-meshing. Most significantly, the exposure to this language diversity should be executed when the students are younger, rather than older. Teaching children to read and appreciate different forms of English, all while respecting the cultures in which these forms come from, will build a more inclusive classroom and a future that encourages diversity and self-expression. It is useful to not only teach students about meshing and switching codes, but also to encourage them to “consider the politically-charged origins of the ‘codes’ they employ” and reflect on the ways that they can include these codes in terms of their social, cultural, racial, and rhetorical situations (Vance, 283). At the same time, I think it is important to inform students of the appropriate times to use informal and formal writing styles. For example, when writing a blog post for fellow students or a script for a comedy podcast, an individual is more likely to utilize an informal tone, one that is similar to speaking to a friend. Conversely, when writing a piece for a professional setting, an individual will presumably choose to write with a formal tone. Despite the differences in writing styles depending on the formality of the setting, I believe that it is crucial to teach students not to accommodate to a singular, constainting way of writing. Students can successfully get their point across without having to use language that sounds forced and robotic; code-meshing and incorporating individualized language into one’s writing can even make their point more persuasive and intriguing to read about. 

Every dialect has its own set of rules, therefore, every dialect should be viewed as valid by teachers and should be graded accordingly and equally. I think it would be wrong for teachers to instruct their students that the only acceptable way to write is in standard written English; instead they should encourage students to learn about different dialects and incorporate the way they speak into their writing. Despite this, I believe that there should be some sort of limit to students’ exposure to different dialects and codes. Students should be taught not to appropriate varieties of English that are not from their own culture, such as white students being taught not to write in African American Vernacular English. As I mentioned earlier, this should be taught at a young age, as a way to create an inclusive and educated foundation for the future. In general, I believe that schools should implement a curriculum having to do with the background and usage of different forms of English, in order to effectively expose students to these dialects. 

In addition to administering a curriculum in schools surrounding different dialects, the entire school system should learn to be more inclusive and accepting while grading papers written by students. A central issue within the educational system, which includes teachers and administrators, is that graders often respond to assignments written outside of standard written English with criticism, marking vernacular grammatical features as mistakes. This criticism suppresses these students’ self-expression and creativity, especially when what they are docked off for is something that comes so naturally to them. Students should have the ability to speak and write in a dialect they are most comfortable with, without having to fear criticism and a poor grade on an assignment. The acceptance of different forms of English within the school system, in addition to the inclusion of a curriculum that exposes students to different dialects and teaches them to respect these dialects, is the most effective solution.

Works Cited

Fish, Stanley. “What Should Colleges Teach?” New York Times, New York Times, 2009, opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/what-should-colleges-teach.

Tardy, Christine M. “Enacting and Transforming Local Language Policies.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 62, no. 4, National Council of Teachers of English, 2011, pp. 634–61, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23006909.

Vance, John. “Code-Meshing Meshed Codes: Some Complications and Possibilities.” JAC, vol. 29, no. 1/2, JAC, 2009, pp. 281–84, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20866901.

Young, Vershawn Ashanti. “Should Writers Use They Own English?” Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2010. JSTOR, ir.uiowa.edu.