by Kylie Armstrong

Amid the Black Lives Matter protests in response to police brutality, the concept of racism being taught in schools has emerged once again. Within this conversation it is essential to discuss the way that language and dialects should be taught in English classes, and whether teaching students to only use Standard English is the correct way for students to succeed in the future. In reply to a New York Times article “What should Colleges Teach” by Stanley Fish, in which Fish argues that the only way students will be able to change the world is if they have the tools of speaking professionally in Standard English, Vershawn Ashanti Young introduces the concept of code meshing. Young believes that it is important that everyone has the ability to communicate their ideas and has an understanding of the functions of language regardless of the dialect they are speaking, and that Fish’s method of teaching solely Standard English is causing a racist attitude towards Black English. From a similar perspective, Jamila Lyiscott, a tri-tongued orator, conveys the ways in which code meshing has been beneficial to her because each language she speaks is important and powerful. Everyone has different opinions on the controversy of how code meshing and dialects should be taught in school, but it is important to acknowledge that all dialects have rules and uses, not just Standard English. 

In his article “Should Writers Use They Own English” Vershawn Ashanti Young writes in  a mix of Black English and standard English to establish his concept of code meshing: “Code meshing is the new code switching; it’s mulitdialectalism and pluralingualism in one speech act, in one paper” (Young). He believes that teachers should teach students how to speak and write using code meshing in a formal and informal setting. He argues that “instead of prescribing how folks should write or speak, I say we teach language descriptively. This means we should, for instance, teach how language functions within and from various cultural perspectives. And we should teach what it takes to understand, listen, and write in multiple dialects simultaneously” (Young). Young is establishing his perspective that the education system needs to allow students to speak and write freely in their own languages in order to combat the negative attitudes towards Black English in the professional setting. Change needs to start with the new generations and the only way to do that is to teach them to be accepting of all dialects and allow them to use them in the classroom.

Jamila Lyiscott wrote her poem “Three Ways to Speak English” after encountering a woman who congratulated her for being very “articulate” during an academic panel she was on. In a Ted Radio Hour interview with Guy Raz, she explained that this encounter opened her eyes to the fact that “had [she] been speaking with [her] family, who’s Trinidadian, or with people in [her] community who speak black English vernacular, that this woman would have maybe not seen the same worth and value in terms of [her] intellectual capacity or just [herself]” (What Does it Mean to Be ‘Articulate’?). In her poem which she performed in a Ted Talk , she explains that she is fluent and articulate in all three languages by switching between them as she delivers her message. Her perspective is that all of her languages are useful in a multitude of settings and teachers should be able to teach about all of the languages and dialects of their students, because dialects shouldn’t be stereotyped as bad or erased and controlled by the education system. She brings in the ideas of prejudices against African American Vernacular English or Black English because of the nonsensical racial disparities that she and others have faced based on their way of speaking, similar to the way that Black hair is seen as “bad” and often controlled by white employers. This controversy over whether AAVE should be taught about and if schools should allow Black students to write using the language that they speak at home and with their friends is a result of these prejudices and negative stereotypes that associate Black characteristics with being “bad”. 

In Lyiscott’s Ted Talk she claims “The English language is a multifaceted oration subject to indefinite transformation” and in hopes of getting teachers to follow in her footsteps, she explains that each dialect has its own rules and that code meshing (as she exemplifies in her performance) should be taught in addition to these rules (Lyiscott). It is possible to be inarticulate when speaking in AAVE, but as opposed to popular belief, Black English is not just broken English. To illustrate this concept Lyiscott exclaims “when mommy mocks me and says, y’all be mad going to the store. I say, mommy, no. That sentence is not following the law. Never does the word mad go before a present participle” (Lyiscott). She demonstrates that AAVE is not just sloppy English, there are still grammar rules to follow, and it should be taught in school the history of and the correct way to use AAVE for the benefit of all students. However, it is important to note that even though schools should expose students to all kinds of dialects and languages, it could quickly become insensitive and considered appropriation if a classroom of white students were told to speak in Black English, or other dialects that they are not a part of. It’s essential for all people to understand and respect Black English as a language, but this does not mean that everyone should use AAVE in school or at home if they are not Black.

Other linguists such as John McWhorter, a professor at Columbia University have also taken similar positions to Jamila Lyiscott and Vershawn Ashanti Young on what teachers should teach about code meshing and diverse dialects. In his book Talking Back, Talking Black, McWhorter argues that Black English is not just “gutter talk” and linguists and teachers are “responsible for the fact that almost nobody knows that there exists something called Black English, which is complex enough to require books and academic articles to analyze, and which has its own grammatical structure, just as Standard English does, or Finnish, or Japanese” (McWhorter 7). He opens his introduction by describing countries such as Switzerland where people speak one language in school and print, but another language outside of a formal setting, and contrasts this with the idea that Americans speak Standard English in school and media, but outside of a formal setting Black Americans use “a lot of slang and bad grammar” (McWhorter 1). The education system needs to change their attitude towards Black English and start to understand that it is an actual language just the same as Swiss German in Switzerland, and stop repressing students’ language in school. 

All three linguists would agree that Black English is a language that should not be seen as just “street talk”. It should be taken seriously in the classroom, just as any other language would be. All teachers should expose their students to a variety of languages and dialects from a young age in order to teach them that there is power in being articulate in multiple tongues. Code meshing should be normalized and students should never feel like they have to speak in standard English to have the ability to make a positive change in the world. 

Works Cited

Lyiscott, Jamila. 3 Ways to Speak English. TED, https://www.ted.com/talks/jamila_lyiscott_3_ways_to_speak_english. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. 

McWhorter, John. Talking Back, Talking Black. Bellevue Literary Press, 2017, pp. 1-11.

“What Does It Mean to Be ‘Articulate’?” NPR, NPR, 14 Nov. 2014, https://www.npr.org/transcripts/362372282. 

Young, Vershawn Ashanti. “Should Writers Use They Own English?” Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2010, Accessed 2 Nov. 2021. 

Dear Reader,

The purpose of my essay was to compare how Jamila Lyiscott and Vershawn Ashanti Young think that teachers should implement code meshing and AAVE into the classroom. I focused on Lyiscott’s Ted Talk and the way that she expresses that all three of her languages have rules and in order to correctly speak each language you must understand the rules first. This led me to include John McWhorter’s book Talking Back, Talking Black as a source because he shows similar opinions. 

I think that in my essay I did a good job explaining the way that Black English is its own language and that it has grammar and rules that should be taught in school. I also think that the part I included from Talking Back, Talking Black flows nicely with the way that I was writing my essay, and the content was very appropriate to this conversation. On the other hand, I think a weakness of my essay is that I didn’t talk very much about the differences in Lyiscott and Young’s opinions on code meshing in the classroom.

The challenges that arose for me when writing this essay were mainly trying to make sure that I get my own opinions in while focusing it on the advice that Young and Lyiscott are delivering in their works. I followed the prompt about Lyiscott’s Ted Talk and it focuses more on comparing the opinions of the two linguists but I knew that I had to have my own voice show through in the blog post too. I struggled to do this and stay within the word count, so I ended up trying to tie more of my opinions in with the conclusion, and the additional source (McWhorter) I brought into the paper.

Sincerely,

Kylie Armstrong

by Lili Ross

In the last few decades, there has been a lot of debate surrounding the teaching of the “Standard” English language, especially in high school and college settings. Some, such as Stanley Fish, argue that while individual dialects are important, they do not have a place in the formal academic setting – students should be taught to use “Standard” English correctly so that they may succeed in a world that requires it. Others, such as Vershawn Ashanti Young, see this separation as unnecessary and harmful to the students – educators are encouraging the flawed practice of code-switching when they should be promoting code-meshing. As Young describes it, code-meshing is “mulitdialectalism and pluralingual-ism in one speech act, in one paper … 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). I won’t advocate for one teaching method or another, but rather I’d like to explore the legitimacy of code-meshing as an acceptable form of writing if it were to be accepted into “Standard” English rules.

As Melissa Dennihy noted in her essay, what’s commonly referred to as “Standard” English is better defined as Standardized English, as it acknowledges that our current rules have developed from the language of ‘consensus’ – everyone within a specific area generally agreeing that there are certain ways to say things. With this distinction in mind, it is especially important to note that Standardized English has the power to change as English speakers change: the “standard” grammar and linguistic rules of the 1600s are different from the 1800s, which are different from now, and that’s okay. As explained in A History of the English Language, “language lives only on the lips of living people and must change as the needs of the people expressing themselves change … we must not think that the English of London … is the norm by which all other speech must be judged, and that in whatever respects other speech differs from this norm it is inferior” (Baugh 328). It is not unreasonable to expect that perhaps one day, if enough people were to extensively use it, code-meshing could become incorporated into our Standardized English rules. The question at this point becomes twofold: firstly, does code-meshing have the necessary qualities to theoretically function as a component of Standardized English? And secondly, in our current society and culture, is it likely that code-meshing would be eer  accepted within Standardized English?

As explained in the CCCC’s position statement, uniformity is often presented as the only way to attain ‘good’ writing, when in fact, professors of academia should be showing their students that ‘good’ writing comes from “precise, effective, and appropriate communication in diverse ways, whatever the dialect” (3). If professors are meant to be educating their students how to write well under the rules of Standardized English, as Fish argues, then as we’ve posited, they could one day begin teaching code-meshing in classrooms. In determining whether or not code-meshing could function within Standardized English, I would argue that a good test would be to compare against CCCC’s standards for ‘good’ writing. Namely, can code-meshing be precise, effective, and appropriate?

Precision is often defined as the accuracy and exactness present in a writer’s word choice. One university, in trying to help pin down this definition for students, came up with a few examples of precision in writing, with the main point being to “never sacrifice meaning or clarity for novelty” (Butte 3-5). Essentially, the website encouraged students to use language that was widely understood, not replacing smaller words for more complex ones to seem better educated or cultured. This is best illustrated in one of President Franklin Delanor Roosevelt’s speeches, as he revised a sentence written by his speechwriter to sound more accessible and down-to-earth: in changing the sentence, “We are endeavoring to construct a more inclusive society,” he chose to reflect the values he was promoting, “We’re going to make a country in which no one is left out.” In choosing “simpler” words, the sentence becomes more precise and effective to the desired audience. Young echoes this idea in his essay, noting that many of his graduate students “tend to try too hard to sound academic, often using unnecessary convoluted language, using a big word where a lil one would do” (113). With this in mind, I would argue that when a writer introduces code-meshing into their writing, it can help the essay become more precise. This is clearly demonstrated in the writings of linguist Dr. Geneva Smitherman, a retired English professor from Michigan State University. In one of her published works, Talkin’ and Testifyin’, she describes the nuance in blending dialects, explaining that “the most distinctive differences in the structure of Black Dialect are patterns using be … mainly used to indicate a condition that occurs habitually … For example, The coffee bees cold means Every day the coffee’s cold, which is different from The coffee cold which means Today the coffee’s cold” (19). For people who do not speak the dialect, this subtle difference may be hard to understand, but now knowing the distinction, properly introducing this dialect into a paper could offer a level of precision not easily attained through “Standard” English.

For a sentence to be considered effective, one faculty member from the University of Washington defined six standards: the language must be concrete and specific, concise, familiar, correct, constructive, and appropriate (“Effective”). While these standards all sound similar, I would argue that effectiveness comes when the audience can easily understand the main ideas behind a sentence, often through the distinct word choice. Effectiveness can be achieved in many ways and is a very subjective concept, but similar to precision, it often develops when the writer is using language they have a clear mastery of. In many cases, code-meshing can lead to effectiveness because there may not be an equivalent word in Standardized English. As Dennihy explains, for one of her assignments she asks students to bring in a work that uses a language or dialect outside of Standardized English and analyze it. One year, a student chose a song written in Spanglish – after translating the lines, she “discussed the challenges of translating the text, explaining why certain lines were rendered less powerful in Standardized English and why some words were untranslatable” (193). In terms of content, code-meshing offers a unique chance to discuss an idea that may not be “translatable” in Standardized English, therefore being a viable source of effectiveness. But as the university states, effectiveness also comes from grammatically clear writing – when the audience doesn’t have to reread a sentence several times to understand what’s being said, the sentence can be considered effective. Some may argue that by promoting code-meshing, one would want to eliminate all rules of Standardized English, grammar and all, but this statement follows faulty logic. Oftentimes, when someone uses code-meshing in a piece of writing, the dialect is present in the words used, not the grammar. No matter the chosen dialect, the grammar of the sentence still remains – in a general sense, a sentence is grammatically correct if the sentence is free of comma splices, run-on ideas, and the if subject agrees with the verb. These grammatical rules are not inherently tied to Standardized English – every language and dialect, whether it be English, German, Spanglish, AAVE, or “text lingo,” is able to follow these and other grammar rules. Therefore code-meshing, as long as it is done well, has the potential to be grammatically effective as well as thoughtfully effective.

The final criterion is appropriateness – can a paper using code-meshing be compatible for the subject it was written for? This question is harder to answer as it can widely vary according to context – one must consider the age of the writer, whether it be for a high school or college course, the expectations of the professor, and the formality of the assignment. What may be okay for an introductory English class may not work for an upper-level Chemistry lab report, but that does not discount code-meshing as a viable tool. In situations where the writer is encouraged to develop and use their own voice, code-meshing could be an integral part of their writing, offering a way for the writer to say things in their own language and provide unique and thoughtful insight. While this is less common in scientific settings, it is still important for researchers to provide their own input and thoughts on the experiment – as one article states, “it is important not to bury your voice in quotes from more well-established researchers …  your conclusions should be based on your original thoughts, which clearly communicate your stance” (Robbins 3). If code-meshing is how you attain that, then it should be considered appropriate for the content.

We’ve proven that code-meshing is a viable candidate for ‘good’ writing as it can be precise, effective, and appropriate when done well, but is it likely that others will recognize that? Unfortunately, in current times, when someone refers to ‘good’ writing, they immediately think of “Standard” English, which many argue has no place for code-meshing. Dennihy notes that after assigning The Color Purple, while many of her students enjoyed Walker’s unique use of language, they “remained unwilling to consider the text an example of ‘good writing’ or ‘good literature,’ given its nonstandardized English” (199). Many students, myself included, have been taught to separate the ideas of personal language and academic language – both are okay and acceptable in their own spheres, but personal language never has a place in an academic setting and vice-versa. We have been taught that ‘good’ writing stems only from correct writing, which must follow Standardized English rules, but that doesn’t make it right. In fact, we have seen how, when used well, code-meshing provides opportunities to be precise and effective that Standardized English cannot.

In our current society, it is realistic to say that code-meshing would not be widely accepted as the definition of ‘good’ writing has not yet adapted, but that can always change. As the CCCC notes, “today’s students will be tomorrow’s employers” – if professors of English could start encouraging code-meshing in writing classes today, then eventually code-meshing could be recognized by the world (23). By exposing young students to published works that incorporate code-meshing, professors can begin to shift the meaning of ‘good’ writing, following the CCCC’s supported standards. By teaching students how to use the tool of code-meshing correctly, rather than shying away from it altogether, we can start to change the rules of Standardized English. But to make any change, we must first be open to the fact that ‘good’ writing doesn’t come from the set of rules regarding language, but rather the language itself.

Works Cited

Baugh, Albert Croll, and Thomas Cable. A History of the English Language. 5th ed., Routledge, 2002.

Butte College. “How to Write Clearly: Using Precise and Concise Language – Tip Sheet.” Butte College, Butte College, 19 Dec. 2019, http://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/style_purpose_strategy/writing_clearly.html.

“Committee on CCCC Language: Background Statement.” Students’ Right to Their Own Language, special issue of College Composition and Communication, vol, 25, no. 3, Sept. 1974, pp 1-18. JSTOR, doi:10,2307/356219

Dennihy, Melissa. “Beyond English: Linguistic Diversity in the College English Classroom.” MELUS: Multi-Ethnic Literature of the U.S., vol. 42 no.4, 2017, p. 192-212. Project MUSE muse.jhu.edu/article/680702.

“Effective Use of Language.” University Of Washington. Accessed October 30, 2021, https://faculty.washington.edu/ezent/el.htm.

Fish, Stanley. “What Should Colleges Teach?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 25 Aug. 2009, https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/what-should-colleges-teach/.

Robbins, Susan P. “Finding Your Voice as an Academic Writer (and Writing Clearly).” Journal of Social Work Education, vol. 52, no. 2, 2016, pp. 133–135., https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2016.1151267.

Smitherman, Geneva. Talkin and Testifyin: The Language of Black America. Houghton Mifflin, 1977.

Young, Vershawn Ashanti, et. al., editors. Other People’s English: Code-Meshing, Code-Switching and African American Literacy. Teachers’ College Press, 2014.

by Eva Neufeld

As students we should be able to mix our unique dialects and find out what variety of English we are most comfortable using. As Young states, “everybody mix the dialect they learn at home with whateva other dialect or language they learn afterwards.” I am going to discuss that if teachers dock off points for not using Standard English it could be seen as prejudice. The school system preaches diversity and inclusivity until some kids want to write the way they speak and then they get a big, fat F on a normal paper.

There are so many dialects and varieties of English used within schools today. One of the most popular is AAVE, African American Vernacular English, or Black English. In many schools, mine included, a popular novel that students read is “Their Eyes Were Watching God” by Zora Neale Hurston. This novel is written in AAVE and is a good way for students to be exposed to different dialects through literature. Teachers test students on this serious piece of literature, but then dock off points when black students use AAVE in a paper responding to the novel.  

I would have to agree with both Young and Fish and say there should be a good balance within the school system regarding instructing varieties of English. Students should be exposed to literature in a different dialect, but there most definitely should be a limit to the exposure. White students should not be allowed to appropriate different varieties of English such as AAVE. They should be exposed to them though. Reading literature with different dialects and learning the backgrounds and culture tied to each dialect should be implemented in the basic school curriculum. Then students that actively use these dialects should be able to use the way they speak to help their writing. That is not to say that standard English grammar should not be taught, but it should not be established as the only acceptable way to write and speak.

Everyone’s dialect is their own and teaching students to display their point most effectively while using their own dialect to achieve it should be every teacher’s priority. Who gets to decide what is academic in the school system? Since every dialect follows its own set of rules, every dialect should be seen as legitimate and should be graded by teachers as equal. The only exception to this would be if the student used a dialect opposite to the one specifically asked to be used or the one being instructed in class. 

Going back to every dialect being legitimate, Merriam Webster recently added AAVE terms “finna” and “chile” to the dictionary (Caldwell). For a teacher to take off points because a student used these words would be considered prejudice. On the other hand, if the student is taking a specific standard English grammar course, the teacher would have to dock the student if standard English was not used. There is a fine line between what could be seen as prejudice and what is not, since there isn’t any legislature in the school system that talks about the use of different dialects, such as AAVE, in assignments. Such legislation needs to be implemented.

In his article Fish states 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.” I can see why he would say this, but I disagree. If this statement were completely true it would mean that anyone that didn’t speak standard English couldn’t change the world and historically nothing would change. President Obama code-meshed quite often during his time as president. An article written by the Harvard Business Review mentions how even though code-switching was “crucial for his [Obama’s] professional advancement, code-switching often comes at a great psychological cost” (McCluney). Relating this to the school system, students could have a hard time switching between their dialects and standard English, which could create a strain on their learning and grades.

The school system needs to be more inclusive of dialects such as AAVE, since “like most language varieties, African American English exhibits inherent variability, encompassing a range from standard to vernacular (cf. Arthur Spears 2001), but stylizations most often make use of features associated with African American Vernacular English, filtered through hip hop and pop cultural representations of Blackness” (Smokoski). AAVE is used widely outside of the school setting by black individuals and even white individuals who appropriate and mock it. Therefore it is extremely important for school systems to properly educate and expose students on how to use whatever variety of English they are most comfortable with. 

 You might be asking yourself, “well why does this affect me?” or you might not even directly realize that you most likely code-mesh everyday. Regardless if you are consciously deciding too, code-switching is often present when you go from a professional to comfortable setting, school to home, or even just speaking with two different people. So why shouldn’t students be able to code-mesh in their writing? 

The article “And Still the Children Suffer: The Dilemma of Standard English, Social Justice, and Social Access” states that the main dilemma surrounding code-switching or code-meshing is how “the educational establishment including teachers, administrators, reading specialists, textbook manufacturers, and standards and test creators respond to vernacular speakers through a deficit lens, marking vernacular grammatical traits as errors” (Wheeler). This “deficit lens” creates a tense atmosphere where teachers are repressing their students’ creativity and freedom to write how they want. Being able to write how you speak, without fearing a lower grade, is vital to figuring out exactly what dialect you are most comfortable using. 

Works Cited

Caldwell, Brandon. “‘Finna,’ ‘Chile,’ & Other AAVE Terms Are Officially Words According To Webster’s Dictionary.” 97.9 The Box, 12 Mar. 2021, theboxhouston.com/10224514/finna-chile-officially-words-websters-dictionary.

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

McCluney, Courtney. “The Costs of Code-Switching.” Harvard Business Review, 28 Jan. 2021, hbr.org/2019/11/the-costs-of-codeswitching.

Smokoski, Hanna L., “Voicing the Other: Mock AAVE on Social Media” (2016). CUNY Academic Works. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/708

Wheeler, Rebecca. “And Still the Children Suffer: The Dilemma of Standard English, Social Justice, and Social Access.” College of Charleston Libraries Off-Campus Access, Accessed 1 Nov. 2021.

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