Language, Power, and Rhetorical Choice

by Anna O’Sullivan

There has been a long debate over how appropriate code meshing and code switching is in academic and professional settings. The abundant number of overlapping dialects within these settings cause friction between those who feel there is no exception to stray from standard English and those who feel they should not have to meet these “standards”. After reviewing multiple sources arguing opposing viewpoints, I ask, in what context should code meshing and switching be appropriate in academic and professional settings and in what context should they not? I feel that there are too many factors that play into why an individual or group would use code switching in the first place to be able to label it under something so general as appropriate or inappropriate. Through this blog post I will discuss to the blogosphere why code switching is hard to generalize as appropriate or inappropriate in academic and professional situations.   

Numerous authors agree that code switching and meshing should be normalized to object against any literary prejudice due to different racial and cultural backgrounds. Vershawn Ashanti Young in Should Writers Use They Own English, has strong opinions on accepting code switching and meshing as the new standard of English. He believes that writers should be able to express themselves with their vernaculars and cultural dialects no matter the academic context. This stems from John Vance’s viewpoint in journal article, Code-Meshing Meshed Codes: Some Complications and Possibilities. He states that “non-standard” dialects- and, further, has a lot more to do with one’s (perceived) skin color than one’s manner of speaking and writing.” (Vance 282). Which then relates back to Young’s claim “ when folks don’t get no jobs or get fired or whatever cuz they talk and write Asian or black or with an Appalachian accent or sound like whatever ain’t the status quo.” (110). From reading this I can agree that dialects should not get in the way of someone’s profession or academic progression. Anyones cultural background should not put them at a disadvantage because their dialect differs from the “standard English”. I feel there should be no “standard english” definition, I do however believe there are certain degrees of generalized communication that educational and workplace settings need to implement. 

Stanley Fish in What Should Colleges Teach?, finds no exception for code meshing and switching and feels standard English is the only appropriate style of writing in any academic and professional setting. I found myself agreeing more with Young in that code meshing should be normalized in the future of literature; however, I also felt that there was some underlying solution in Fish’s opposing argument. Fish expresses his opinion against this when he states “It is because our students come to us unable to write clean English sentences..” (What Should Colleges Teach 1). I question this statement because I am unable to pinpoint exactly what a clean English sentence is in a classroom or workplace that has a diverse group of people. Students and employees coming from different cultural backgrounds have various forms of what a “clean English sentence” means. However, I do see the reality of a situation that in these settings there is a need for a general dialect in order to have a fluidity in communication. Young suggests teaching the basic understanding of what he considered formal writing through using the work of famous authors  (What Should Colleges Teach 1). The truth of the situation is that there needs to be a ground level of understanding each other linguistically. This can make teaching a basic level of “standardized english”  useful because it provides a ground level of communication in the educational or professional setting. While I disagree that only a white vernacular should be the communication standard, educational systems should implement a course of inclusive basic dialect.  A class that teaches general punctuation and literary rules like sentence structure and more while also incorporating lessons on different dialects so every student can understand their peers’ vernaculars while also sharing one between them.  If we were just to mesh cultural dialects, it could lead to students not of a certain vernacular to feel ok saying offensive terms only appropriate in a particular culture. For example, a white student feeling like they can use the N- word if they are taught to use African American vernaculars within their classroom. This shows that in some instances the free use of code meshing and switching is not appropriate in academia. Therefore, a basic dialect or “standard” form of communication along with the knowledge of other cultural dialects might be beneficial to students and employees. Learning about different cultural dialects and vernaculars while also having a common form of communication would allow general respect and fluid conversations. 

We must take into account the growing diversity in education and professional settings and what this means for the communication level within these settings. The Conference on College Composition and Communication created a position statement on second language writing and multilingual writers. This statement incorporates valid arguments on how teachers and writing program administrators should go about multilingual students. They urge them to “recognize and support multilingual writers’ practices of integrating their unique linguistic and cultural resources into writing both in classrooms and at the level of the writing program.” (CCCC part 1). I agree strongly with this claim and find that multilingual writers and students make up for an important part of the world of literature. To provide support for these multilingual students, teachers should allow them to use footnotes in assignments indicating that they know there is a sentence fragment being broken. As mentioned before, in order to have a fluid communication within classrooms there has to be a general dialect within academia. However, those who learned English as a secondary language should be able to feel comfortable in telling their professors when they need to code mesh or switch to get their point across. Cultural dialect has nothing to do with knowledge and intelligence on a subject therefore, should not hinder the outcome of a students performance. Code meshing should be freely used and expressed socially in any setting but in order for general communication to be passed within educational and professional settings there needs to be a general dialect to create a common understanding between teachers, employers and students. 

With considering all opposing viewpoints over code meshing and switching, I feel that in order to claim it appropriate or inappropriate multiple factors must be considered. From Vershawn Young and John Vances’ viewpoints, racial and cultural backgrounds should not hinder any students or employees’ progression in their academic or professional settings. In order to fully adhere to this the Conference on College Composition and Communications urgency to support these multilingual writers must be shown due to the fact that these multilingual writers make up an important part in the world of literature. While I do not fully agree with Fish’s statement on “clean English”, I am able to understand that there must be a common ground of communication within these settings in order to have fluidity in communication with one another. Therefore, I feel code meshing and switching should be taught in courses for students of all cultural backgrounds to understand their peers’ dialects. These courses should also teach a general form of literary procedures so that students have an equal opportunity to contribute their knowledge in these settings without feeling unfair confinement from a “standardized english”. The white vernaculars “standard english” that is normalized today puts diverse students from various cultural backgrounds at a disadvantage and should be remodeled into a more diverse version of english. This English should be inclusive to all dialects and vernaculars therefore, making code meshing and switching a more familiarized concept of communication. 

 

Work Cited 

“CCCC Statement on Second Language Writing and Multilingual Writers.” Conference on College Composition and Communication, 12 June 2020, https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/secondlangwriting. 

Fish, Stanley. “What Should Colleges Teach?” The New York Times , 7 Sept. 2009. 

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, pp. 110–117., https://doi.org/10.17077/2168-569x.1095.

Anna O’Sullivan, Rhetorical Essay (Pinks VMA Speech)

Anna O’Sullivan

Dr. Peeples

Honors Academic Writing: Rhetorical Essay

October 5th 2021

American singer and songwriter, Pink, paid a touching tribute to her daughter in her acceptance speech at the 2017 MTV Video Music Awards. Pink’s acceptance gained the media’s attention and has been the topic in many news outlets and journal articles due to her moving words regarding self acceptance. Her six year old daughter, Willow Sage Hart, had an altercation with kids at her school about her appearance causing Willow to innocently confide in her mother on her way to school about feeling less than her peers. Little did Willow know, the conversation that took place would cause the music sensation to influence the lives of millions through her acceptance speech for her MTV music nomination. The message about self love, acceptance and staying true to yourself in a cruel world uplifted the mass number of fans and public media outlets watching in the crowd and over the television. Pink’s response to the power she holds in her speech is what is to be considered a “rhetorical situation”. In the limited time Pink was given to express her gratitude for receiving the award, she was able to communicate an effective and personalized message that would turn the heads of many and reflect an appropriate response to the exhaustive body image epidemic. 

Pink’s speech exhibits a clear response to her emotions after uncovering her six year old daughter Willow’s opinions about her unwanted appearance. This is what the author of the journal article, The Rhetorical Situation, would consider the exigence of the acceptance speech. Lloyd F. Bitzer defines the exigence of a rhetorical situation as “.. an imperfection marked by urgency; it is a defect, an obstacle, something waiting to be done, a thing which is other than it should be.” (6). The urgency of this rhetorical situation would be the concern Pink’s six year old daughter felt over the opinions her classmates had about her appearance. Willow insisted while in the backseat of her mothers car that she was “the ugliest girl” she knew. This caused Pink to answer with a powerpoint presentation to vocalize the many successful superstars that never changed from other opinions about them. Pink’s response was to assure her daughter that to be unique is more rewarding then to assimilate to those around you; however, her incorporation of this personal experience shed light on the alarming topic of self insecurity that engulfs the lives of many. The generalized urgency and exigence of the speech is the body image epidemic. Due to the fact that most people have felt some sort of insecurity or vulnerability in their lives, the personal emotion Pink incorporated into her speech was the perfect way to relate to her audience. Lloyd F. Bitzer also exclaims how in order to be considered the exigence of a rhetorical situation, there needs to be a solution or a “positive modification” needs to be persuaded to the audience. Hence the mentioned necessity of “urgency” in rhetorical situations (The Rhetorical Situation 6).  Pink headlines many newspaper articles as a result of her personal exclamations made in her acceptance speech. In conclusion, Pink’s VMA speech contains  an appropriate exigence that helps execute the rhetorical situation. 

A prominent  reason there was a positive response to the exigence of the speech was due to the conversation about the body image epidemic. Stephanie Jones and Hilary Hughes-Decatur discuss in Speaking of bodies in justice-oriented, feminist teacher education, the obsession of body image in education as early as primary. The statement “A 6-year-old child writes a note to her father at home, “You are not fat. I am fat.” proves that at Pink’s daughters age, discussions of appearance and opinions form among the children. Another related example is “In a school conference about a third-grade girl’s progress in mathematics, teachers focus on her large body and perceived lack of femininity instead of her academic work.” (Stephanie Jones and Hilary Hughes-Decatur Speaking of bodies in justice-oriented, feminist teacher education). This part of the article most closely relates to when Pink says in her speech “But when people make fun of me, that’s what they use. They say I look like a boy or I’m too masculine or I have too many opinions, my body is too strong.” (TIME). Secondly, article Mirror, mirror: the body image epidemic, quotes states“…50 percent of girls in their early to middle teens are dissatisfied with their body shape. After comparing themselves with slim models, girls often feel a surge of depression, according to results of a study by University of Melbourne psychologists.” (Australian Business Intelligence). This evidence shows why the rhetorical situation gained a mass amount of attention and why Pink was able to persuade those in reacting to the exigence. Now knowing the battle these kids face in lacking self confidence, it is assured Pink chose an impactful topic to fill the time in her Video Music Award acceptance speech. The rhetorical situation she chose to conduct was able to influence a wide variety of people. In total, the urgency of the body image epidemic led Pink to cause an impactful chain reaction.

Andy Harvey- Getty Images

Pink and her 6 year old daughter Willow Sage Hart before the 2017 VMAs

 

Pink being a pop music sensation, influencer and all around popular figure for many years, gains a mass amount of attention in her everyday life. Surrounding this popularity is a level of respect Pink radiates causing millions to be influenced by her words and actions. This allows this rhetorical situation to attract a large audience. In the journal article, The Rhetorical Situation, a rhetorical situation requires a response of change by the persons affected by the exigence (Bitzer 7). These people engaging in the discourse are considered the responders or audience, which brings purpose to the rhetorical existence. Pink’s audience was the attendees of the 2017 MTV video music awards, her daughter, her fans and anyone who read the media frenzy covering the acceptance speech. Her audience being broad allowed various forms of reactions to occur causing more of a discourse in action. According to the University of Arkansas School of Business, two types of audiences emerge. The first being the mediated audience; who the situation was intended to interact with. In this situation the mediated audience would be the audience within the MTV Video Music Award event. Now we additionally have the immediate audience, “the individuals literally listening to or reading the rhetor’s argument.” (University of Arkansas School of Business, walton.uark.edu). Since the show is broadcasted, the millions that chose to watch Pinks nomination were solely listening to the rhetoric of her speech. It is important to distinguish the two kinds of audiences because it shows there are two outlets to enhance the outcome of the response and it also is important to understand the context of the entire rhetorical situation.  The emotional persuasion through Pink’s acceptance speech allowed the wide audience to interpret in a similar manner to the urgency, leading her to a stronger outcome. 

 

Angela Weiss Getty Image

Example of the large audience at 

the MTV Video Music Awards

 

Pink’s VMA acceptance speech shows constraints that affect the outcome of the discourse within the rhetorical situation. Firstly, the majority of acceptance speeches have time restrictions or limits. For example, the Oscars; one of the most prestigious honors in the film industry, only gives their nominees 45 seconds to speak aloud about their acceptance. The time restriction on Pink’s acceptance speech impaired her chances to excel linguistically. She starts her dialogue with “I know I don’t have a lot of time, but if I may tell you a quick story. (TIME)” With more time, Pink could have enlarged her exigence and audience for greater discourse. 

It is notable that Pink’s message did not fit into the typical outline of an acceptance speech, most being filled with thank you’s and honorable mentions. Kathleen M. Hall Jamieson challenges genres in literacy and the effects on the rhetorical situation when she states, “If rhetoric as discipline has been engaged in conscience generic classification from birth, is it not time that we asked what it was that we make generic distinctions? (162). The generic response to an acceptance speech is to thank the people who helped you and those who are important to you. It is assured that there is a number of peoples who loathe the acceptance speeches that come along with the televised event. Therefore, it must be mentioned that Pink did not follow the standard outline of an acceptance speech however did originate back to honorable mentions at the end of her message. Using the statement “And to all the artists here, I’m so inspired by all of you. Thank you for being your true selves and for lighting the way for us.”, Pink was able to persuade the audience of the urgency of her exigence with her emotional speech. SHe was also able to make her honorable mentions and align herself someway with the usual acceptance speech monologue (TIME). Pink’s ability to inspire her audience with other influential figures promoted the urgency of her message while fitting into the mold of a typical acceptance speech.

Familyanatomy.com 

Child measuring waist in reference to Willows image struggles and research about body image in children

 

In conclusion, Pinks 2017 MTV Video Music Award acceptance speech was a fitting response to its rhetorical situation. This claim can be made due to the obvious components of exigence, audience and constraints that are requirements to be considered a rhetorical situation. Taking into consideration Lloyd Bitzer’s journal article, it shows that Pink’s personal conversation with her daughter and the urgency behind the body image epidemic served as the prominent imperfections that make up the exigence of the rhetorical situation. Furthermore, there is a wide range of responses to this rhetorical argument due to the audience surrounding the situation. With both the mediate and immediate audiences, Pink’s response to the rhetorical situation created what Bitzer refers to as “positive modifications” (The Rhetorical Situation 6). Finally, Pink’s speech contained constraints as well, such as the time restriction. Kathleen Jamiesons journal, argues how categorization of genre could have been a constraint to Pink’s acceptance speech due to the fact that it was an improper thank you and in reality was not a typical acceptance speech.  After researching the normalcy in kids feeling unworthy because of their bodies, it is obvious Pink chose an appropriate way to execute the speech to personalize her rhetorical situation. While most acceptance speeches can be qualified as rhetorical situations containing an exigence, audience and constraints, Pink’s acceptance speech was able to create a positive reaction that led to modifications aiding the “imperfection marked by urgency” (The Rhetorical Situation, Bitzer). Between the urgency in the exigence, the audience’s response and interpretation, constraints of time restrictions and finally, the discourse following a topic like body image, Pink’s MTV acceptance speech was an appropriate response to the rhetorical situation. 

 

Work cited 

Bitzer, Lloyd F. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy & Rhetoric, vol. 25, Penn State University Press, 1992, pp. 1–14, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40237697.

 

Jamieson, Kathleen M. Hall. “Generic Constraints and the Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy & Rhetoric, vol. 6, no. 3, Penn State University Press, 1973, pp. 162–70, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40236849.

Jones, Stephanie, and Hilary Hughes-Decatur. “Speaking of bodies in justice-oriented, feminist teacher education.” Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 63, no. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2012, pp. 51+. Gale In Context: Biography, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A277342532/BIC?u=cofc_main&sid=bookmark-BIC&xid=a3005807. Accessed 7 Oct. 2021.

“Mirror, mirror: the body image epidemic.” Australasian Business Intelligence, 20 Aug. 2001, p. 1008232i5740. Gale In Context: Environmental Studies, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A77331878/GRNR?u=cofc_main&sid=bookmark-GRNR&xid=d37c3edf. Accessed 8 Oct. 2021.

Zorthian, Julia. “’We Don’t Change.’ Read Pink’s Emotional VMA’s Speech About Body Image and Her Daughter.” TIME Magazine, 28 Aug. 2017.