by Anya Newby
Language is the shared, common vessel in which we exchange ideas with the people and culture around us. In the modern Western World, conventional academic English is the educational standard for all sects of professionalism, for better or worse. Despite this, the majority of Americans are expected to “code-switch”, which, as defined by writers at Harvard, is “adjusting one’s style of speech, appearance, behavior, and expression in ways that will optimize the comfort of others in exchange for fair treatment, quality service, and employment opportunities” (“The Cost of Code-Switching”) in order to be seen as professional and/or educated. This practice is used starkly more within the African American community, as the use of AAVE and non-conventional vernacular is still commonly prejudiced against in America. While both Jamila Lyiscott and Vershawn Ashanti Young address the disparity that “proper English” imposes on those with non-conventional dialects and the consequential expectation to code-switch that comes with it, they emphasize these points entirely differently. Lyiscott focuses on the potential variety in dialects and focuses on code-switching, while Young places importance on code-meshing and diminishing the priority of conventional academic English altogether. Hopefully this essay illuminates these issues to whoever comes across it.
Jamila Lyiscott delivers an influential spoken word piece titled 3 Ways to Speak English detailing her experience as a Black woman in America and the constraints, or unseen benefits, that are encompassed by mastering the switch between several dialects or “codes”. Between her vernacular from the classroom, her home, and her friends, she states she is “trilingual”, which is arguably accurate. Her ability to distinguish between which code she uses at what time has landed her the label “articulate”. This term, in my opinion, is both complementary yet backhanded. Her ability to differentiate what code to use and her proficiency in all make this accurate, but also insinuates that this ability to code-switch, especially to proper English, is surprising and deserves recognition, despite the common expectation to do so. This goes both ways, as she describes how she slips in between codes intentionally in certain environments despite the status quo, using academic English at home and even going as far as to correct her family members when their grammar is nonconventional. This only enhances the depth of her understanding and “articulation”, but varies greatly from Young’s ideology. Her execution also differs. Lyiscott distinctly trades between codes throughout her performance, but majoritarily speaking in a conventional English tone and diction; she focuses on code-switching, not code meshing. Her message promotes fluidity in multiple codes and a full adaptation to one’s environment.
Vershawn Young, the author of Should Authors Use They Own English?, has a different take. Throughout the article, Young uses code-meshing to combine “casual” AAVE and “professional” English. The medium makes a difference here too; Young’s interpretation includes unconventionally spelled English words, such as the use of “rite” instead of “right”, an opportunity to test boundaries that we don’t get with Lyiscott’s performance. This difference in spelling and phrasing does not hinder the reader– Young’s message is intelligible and well-read while also being comical and realistic, which only furthers his point that vernacular does not affect one’s ability to educate and express ideas to their audience. While everyone code-switches in certain aspects of their life, the expectation put on minorities to completely conform to a white-washed and western vernacular is refuted, rightfully so, by Young. When confronted with Stanley Fish’s question, “Who could object to learning a second language?”, Young replies, “Wouldn’t we all become multidialectal and plurilingual? And that’s my exact argument, that we all should know everybody’s dialect, at least as many as we can, and be open to the mix of them in oral and written communication” (Young 113). Personally, I agree with this; the burden to conform should not only impact non-conventional speakers, but all.
One thing Lyiscott and Young are likely to agree on is the subjectivity of language itself, especially in America. With such a wide array of backgrounds and cultures, the ideology that a white-centered, standard English will bring one the most success is outdated and racially ignorant. As the most commonly studied foreign language worldwide, the English language, at its core, is meant to be altered and built upon; it should serve as a tool open for interpretation and not work only by strict conventions. Lyiscott describes the English language as, “a multifaceted oration/ Subject to indefinite transformation”. While Young does not explicitly say this, it is implied that this is a common belief. Instead, in one instance, Young references William Labov, a linguist in the 1970’s who noticed a disparity in opportunity for students who wrote and spoke in black dialect. Labov states, “in many ways [black] working-class speakers are more effective narrators, reasoners, and debaters than many middle-class [white] speakers, who temporize, qualify, and lose their argument in a mass of irrelevant detail” (Graff 37), to which Young adds, “so when we teach the rhetorical devices of blacks we can add to the writing proficiency of whites and everybody else” (116). While this is a slightly different point, the evolving and subjective nature of the English language and the improvements in communication that would result from including differing dialects and perspectives is undeniable. This leaves us pondering several questions; How can we destigmatize dialects other than conventional English in professional and educational environments? Furthermore, How can we support and implement diverse vernacular to benefit the whole?
Naturally, we will address how English is taught. From the age of 5, the American school system teaches kids conventional American English with an overlooked rigor. Students are taught to read English and follow conventions specific to the language such as grammar, spelling, punctuation, and vocabulary. While these do not only apply to English, the innate focus on the proper execution while writing and speaking is inherently flawed. Kyoko Inoue, a linguist quoted by Young, states, “What the writer/speaker says (or means) often controls the form of the sentence…. [the] intent make[s the] sentence clear and understandable, not rules from the grammar police-man (Young 116). This, I believe, applies to teaching children English, especially if it is not their first language. While I’m not discrediting the importance of literacy, I firmly believe that literacy falls outside of academic conventions and lies within the message behind it. Lyiscott places an importance on being fluid in several codes, especially conventional English as to surpass obstacles, but counterintuitively this deepens the cycle and validates the structure that she adapted to. In no way is she wrong for this advocacy, but to deconstruct systematic English standards from development teachers should focus on the thought process behind the writing more than the vanity or conventionality of what was written. In other words, emphasis should be placed on why and what was written instead of how. This will not only allow English-speaking students to expand their worldview but will alleviate the pressure placed on young children of color to learn proper English in order to seem competent. This, in practice, is not easier said than done and the logistics behind reframing/loosening what is considered conventional English are plentiful and unclear. However, a social shift in attitude is the start to a long process. The more we educate those unaware of this institutional discrimination and normalize expanding what is considered proper, the closer we will be to our goal. Language is meant to express and share with others–it is more about intent and less about execution–and the greater we accept and understand each other, the more unified we become.
Works Cited
3 Ways to Speak English | Jamila Lyiscott – YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9fmJ5xQ_mc.
“The Costs of Code-Switching.” Harvard Business Review, 28 Jan. 2021, https://hbr.org/2019/11/the-costs-of-codeswitching.
Fish, Stanley. “What Should Colleges Teach?” New York Times, 7 Sept. 2009.
Graff, Gerald. Clueless in Academe: How Schooling Obscures the Life of the Mind.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003.
Young, Vershawn Ashanti. “Should Writers Use They Own English?” Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2010, pp. 110–117., https://doi.org/10.17077/2168-569x.1095.