by Jamie Wirth

Early on in my academic education I was taught the proper language to write and talk to others. I had to make sure I always wrote in MLA format, I had to capitalize proper nouns, and I learned how to correctly use punctuation in my writing in order for my work to be deemed acceptable by others. Throughout this learning process, I was never asked how I wanted to convey my own opinions. When writing to adults or people in positions of authority it was considered improper to use abbreviations or slang, as it could be interpreted as uneducated. But often in positions like these I was left with a feeling of discomfort as I would be in a constant battle of making sure I was showing them my true personality, but only enough so that my writing would not be interpreted as informal. While there may be some instances where writing should remain formal, people should be both taught and allowed to write more similar to the way they speak.

Code meshing allows for writers to clearly get their point across in language their readers will understand, as they create a sense of comfortable conversation and familiarity with readers. Code meshing, explained by Vershan Ashwanti Young in his piece Should Writers Use They Own English? discusses how “Code meshing blend 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”. Personally, using informal language in this explanation makes it very easy for a student reader like myself to understand this uncommon use of rhetoric. Young explains how he believes that one’s writing style should reflect who they are as a person, therefore sound like how they would actually speak. Currently typing this paper, Google Docs is continually underlying aspects of Young’s writing, signifying that the grammar is wrong. But what if society could accept that maybe the grammar isn’t wrong, but rather one’s perception of informality is? The informal tone of Young’s piece helps me to better understand his point of view and makes me realize how much of society and education is conditioned to write in a “proper” format because it will be interpreted better by others. Yet, Young’s informal diction did just that for me, and made it easier for me to relate. In addition to the informal writing style Young displays throughout his piece, Young also touches upon the concept of Black English, which is more specific and comes with higher stakes than more general informality. This is partially a result of, along with other accents and language, that “proper” English is unfortunately seen as the most educated and common language that should be spoken nationwide, or even globally. Nonetheless, writing allows others to creatively express their opinions and share what they believe others would experience.  

Being taught to write as we speak could help expand one’s diction to use in one’s everyday vocabulary, so people would not feel the need to have a distinction between their learned writing skills and conversational skills. While it is important to learn the basics of language and writing and sentence structure “quotation marks can indicate reported speech, and capitals can indicate proper nouns, but we gain a sense of the writer’s personality when they’re also available for use as “scare quotes” and Ironic Capitals” (McCulloch)”.  Scarce quotes are imperative to informal writing as they convey an ironic or skeptical stance toward the word or phrase they’re around. This “improper” diction requires the reader to read between the lines and get a better understanding of the author’s personality and writing style. One’s ability to write comprehensively does not mean that when they write what they speak their writing abilities will diminish. Allowing one to write how they talk may even help one explore their sense of self which they can include to make their writing better.

An alternative form of changing language, code switching, can often have a toxic impact mentally, as it sparks a feeling of peer pressure. Code switching is the process of shifting from one form of language to another, and it will often change depending on one’s social setting. People often worry about fitting in with others and “very often, people code-switch — both consciously and unconsciously — to act or talk more like those around them”(Thompson). If students are taught at an early age to write differently than they speak to conform with social norms, they may begin to lose their sense of identity. This is extremely applicable in everyday life as “A speaker’s code-switching corresponds to his/her previous exposure through social networks, and personal attitudes” (Liu). This exemplifies how one’s surroundings can easily pressure them into code switching in order for them to feel accepted in an environment that may make them feel self conscious, and is arguably the most influential impact of code switching. This is evident in the Huffpost article that states “An immigrant 4-year-old boy from Poland (or China) who just moved to St. Louis is more likely to speak perfect English and love baseball within a year because he wants to fit in with the other kids” (Hoffman). This models the psychological ideal of conformity which is when people change their speech, attitudes, actions etc in order to match others around them in order for them to feel included. This yearning of a desire for inclusivity will encourage not only young children but people of all ages to possibly use more informal language in their daily vocabulary if other people they look up to or hangout with use slang frequently. Fearing that they won’t fit in and be accepted, that person will adopt commonly used slang words, with hopes that they will not be seen as different or as an outcast by others. 

I have personally seen first hand how easy it is to utilize code switching in my daily vocabulary. After coming to College of Charleston, many of the friends I have made here are from the South, so naturally I began to incorporate their vocabulary into my own. When hanging out with my friends at school, I began to notice when I was with them, I began using “y’all” more when talking to them as a group. Yet, when I came home for fall break and spent more time with my family and friends, I quickly switched my vocabulary back to “you guys” in order to fit in with the vocabulary used around me. While code-switching I personally did not feel pressured by others to change my vocabulary with fears that I would not be accepted, however, changing my word choice allowed me to feel more comfortable in my surroundings.  

However, code switching is still necessary in many aspects of life in order to prove professionalism, education and economic status to others. The way one articulates is very important in a professional setting. Stanley Fish mentions this topic in regards to code switching as he adds “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” (Fish). If someone is running for a government office or promotion, they will not be taken seriously if they write speeches or submit applications using slang or wording others may not understand. For voters in rural areas a politician may gear his speech towards farmers using words like “folks” and in urban areas like Spanish Harlem, New York City, you may interject Spanglish (a hybrid of Spanish and English) to appeal to and connect with your audience. While being allowed to write informally,  similar to how you speak,  is applicable for many situations, there are still distinctions in both the business and professional sense that involve the need for code switching. Similarly, writing is often perfected in higher education in order for the students to be successful in life. This has been proven as a necessity as “Freshmen estimate that they write about 25 hours each week, and most believe that they arrived on their campus with college-level writing skills fully formed… students’ notions about writing may not match professors’ expectations…” (The Chronicle of Higher Education). Students may need this push to ensure that their writing is mature enough to pursue their future careers. 

Although formal writing is applicable in some circumstances, people should not be looked down upon when writing similar to how they speak. Writing that reflects one’s speech allows for readers to see the author’s true tone and personality, and can often help them better express themselves and their viewpoint. Readers or an audience may feel more connected and feel they share similar experiences with an author or orator if they feel similar to them. Code-switching can  also be persuasive and induce those with low self esteem or feelings of inadequacy  to conform to those around them in order to feel that they fit in.  This may be detrimental to those in the audience if they feel they must conform to others because of a low sense of self . In both writing and speaking, there is a place for code-switching and code meshing, but it is the author’s choice to identify which method is to their advantage, whether it be to gain employment, recruit votes, persuade others  or to just fit in. 

Works Cited:

The Chronicle of Higher Education. 21 Mar. 2014, www.chronicle.com/article/students-come-to-college-thinking-theyve-mastered-writing/?cid2=gen_login_refresh. Accessed 31 Oct. 2021.

Fish, Stanley. “What Should Colleges Teach?” New York Times, Sept. 2009, lms.cofc.edu/d2l/le/content/267890/viewContent/3607465/View. Accessed 31 Oct. 2021.

Hoffman, Auren. “You Think for Yourself but You Act like Your Friends (on

     Homophily).” Huffpost, Nov. 2011, www.huffpost.com/entry/

     you-think-for-yourself-bu_b_182605. Accessed 4 Nov. 2021.

Liu, Hong. “A Socio-Cognitive Approach to Code-Switching: From the Perspective of a Dynamic Usage-based Account of Language.” EBSCOhost, Nov. 2020, web-p-ebscohost-com.nuncio.cofc.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=5&sid=1467d77e-2543-46f4-9043-f1b0aa4a5b65%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=146730653&db=a2h. Accessed 31 Oct. 2021.

McCulloch, Gretchen. “We Learned to Write the Way We Talk.” New York Times, Dec. 2019, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/27/opinion/sunday/internet-writing-text-emotion.html. Accessed 31 Oct. 2021.

Thompson, Matt. “Five Reasons Why People Code-Switch.” NPR, Apr. 2013, www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/04/13/177126294/five-reasons-why-people-code-switch. Accessed 31 Oct. 2021.

Young, Vershawn Ashanti. “Should Writers Use They Own English?” Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2010, lms.cofc.edu/d2l/le/content/267890/viewContent/3488970/View. Accessed 31 Oct. 2021.

by Maddie Bendiewicz

Fish and Young broadcast their contrasting opinions in their articles on speech in the classroom. While Fish advocates for a strict promotion of standard written English, Young advocates for a mixture of different dialects in the classroom to help level the playing field for all students. And while learning this form of English will be different for all students, teachers should acknowledge that the use of this form of English doesn’t automatically make someone more intelligent. I think standard written English should be enforced in the classroom because it provides the best opportunity for success in today’s society.

Fish writes in his article “What Should Colleges Teach?” that there should be a standard form of English taught in the classroom. Standard English is known as English that “with respect to spelling, grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary is substantially uniform.” This form of English has been “established by usage in the formal and informal speech and writing of the educated … that is widely recognized as acceptable wherever English is spoken and understood” (Webster). Fish also believes in teachers discouraging students’ dialects if they stray from the standard. This mainly affects minority students and those who are not native english speakers, and having to adapt to this new form of English is like learning a new language. This disproportionate influence on students serves as Young’s motivation for his article in response to Fish’s.

Young opposes Fish’s stance in his article “Should Writers Use They Own English” by discussing how straying from the standard form of English is not inherently incorrect. He also brings up that these societally defined “incorrect” versions of English are common in the lives of mainly minority students, and having them adhere to standard English is like making them learn another language because it may not be the version of English that they use among friends or family. Young takes issue with Fish discussing his concern that his graduate students couldn’t write very good sentences. Young thinks that if “they wrote good enuff in they essays to get into grad school” that proves that they write well enough (Young). Young calls for an introduction of “code meshing” into the classroom. This is the combination of multiple dialects within any single context of communication. Code meshing allows people to “draw upon the resources of more than one “code” in the course of constructing or communicating meaning” (Malenczyk). This will make it easier for all students to incorporate the language that they use at home into their writing.

I agree with Fish on teaching a standard form of English in the classroom. I think that there should be a standard form of English grammar and language taught in schools. Not allowing students to learn societally acceptable uses of words and language is not giving them an equal chance at success. Fish vocalizes this concern by saying “You’re not going to be able to change the world if you’re not equipped with the tools that speak to its present condition” (Fish). Society has built itself around a certain form of language, and a complete understanding of standard English is crucial for success in today’s world. Whether you’re taking the SAT, ACT, LSAT, or other standardized tests, applying for a job, meeting new people, or talking to your professors, the way you speak has a huge impact on how you come across. Especially in job interviews when the person interviewing you doesn’t know you very well, you have to make a good first impression. Having the ability to give clear answers to questions and communicate effectively is a very important part of life and succeeding in society. And because vernacular languages are less often understood, this is more difficult if you aren’t using standard English.

In the words of Dr. Brennah Hutchison, ultimately this debate comes down to the question of “Are we helping students by not addressing effective lexical or syntactic choices some might view as erroneous?” This battle is essentially on whether to “nurture students’ home languages in academic prose or ask them to conform to stuffy, grammatical rules” (Hutchison). Although these seem like radically different ideas, there is room to compromise. While I believe in conforming to standard English in the classroom, I don’t think that the struggles of minority students should be ignored. While teaching about standard written English, teachers and professors should also reinforce the idea that people who use other dialects aren’t less intelligent than people who use the standard English that is reinforced in schools. Teachers should also educate students on different vernacular languages. Students should know that vernacular languages aren’t failed attempts at standard English but rather separate languages with different grammatical rules. This should be brought into classrooms by reading literature and listening to speeches in other vernacular languages in addition to standard English, and emphasizing their importance as well.

Instead of ignoring the fact that learning these English rules will be more difficult for some students, schools should teach everyone not to discriminate against other students for the way they speak and write. Teachers should allow a safe environment for students to speak the way they are used to but encourage them to learn the version of English that will allow them to be the most successful that they can be. Teaching standard English while also instilling this awareness of other vernacular languages will help move society toward a place more accepting of other vernacular languages.

Learning how to communicate may be one of the first things you learn in school, but that doesn’t mean it’s easy. Communication comes in many forms and learning effective communication for the workplace is different for every student. Depending on the student’s background and home environment, the difficulty of learning standard written English may vary. And although this will inevitably be more challenging for certain students, this topic should not be ignored. Teaching all students standard English will open the most opportunities for them. And teaching that different dialects and forms of English that stray from what is being taught in the classroom is not inherently incorrect or that the speaker is not necessarily any less intelligent is also important. This allows students of all backgrounds to feel more comfortable and included in the classroom, and foster a better learning environment. 

Works Cited:

Fish, Stanley. “What Should Colleges Teach?” New York Times, 9 Sept. 2009.

Hutchison, Brennah, and Angela Morris. “Mesh It, Y’all: Promoting Code-Meshing Through                           W        Writing Center Workshops.” The Peer Review, thepeerreview-iwca.org/issues/issue-4-2/     m          mesh-it-yall-promoting-code-meshing-through-writing-center-workshops/. Accessed 4        

             Nov. 2021.

Malenczyk, Rita, et al., editors. Composition, Rhetoric & Disciplinarity.

“Standard English.” Merriam-Webster.

Young, Vershawn Ashanti. “Should Writers Use They Own English?” Iowa Journal of Cultural 

Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2010, pp. 110-18.

 

by TJ Heck

The purpose of this blog post is to provide insight into what English as Second Language learners face both inside and outside of the classroom. To supplement these claims, teacher Kaylie Keels shares her personal experience, firsthand on the issue. First, the definition of ESL is posed followed by general challenges, and finally analysis of the issue as a whole.

ESL or English as a Second Language refers to those whose native language is not English. This title is for people who lack an extensive literacy in the English Language. I think that it’s commonly assumed that ESL learners are exclusively here in the states, but that is not the case. ESL learners are everywhere around the world. The struggle, however, is getting enough teachers, funding, and suitable curriculums to be able to effectively teach these English language novices. This and many other instances challenge UNESCO’s principle of literacy stating that “Literacy is a fundamental human right and the foundation for lifelong learning. It is fully essential to social and human development in its ability to transform lives. For individuals, families, and societies alike, it is an instrument of empowerment to improve one’s health, ones’ income, and one’s relationship with the world” (Dollear).

If you went to public school growing up, which I think everyone should, you more than likely had peers going to separate or different classes than you did during the day. Having identified me as nosy through one of those elementary school hand games, I frequently wondered where my classmates went and what they did during their time away. Finding out that they got to participate in ESOL (English to Speakers of Other Languages) class, I always just assumed that it was because those kids were Hispanic and needed extra practice to maintain their standing in the class. What I didn’t know, which I do now, is that these set-apart times were crucial in aspects further than just communicating in English.

ESL students face a variety of challenges, ones that we as native speakers wouldn’t know or even consider existed. Aside from the expected grammatical, syntactical, and components like those, the challenges that are the hardest to overcome are those that occur before, during, and after the physical learning time.

Kailey Keels, an educator with over 10 years’ experience in teaching ESL in the Charleston Public School System, states in her presentation, “the majority of the non-English speakers I teach on a daily basis are smuggled in by coyotes and shoved into the US in hopes of finding someone they know here. From there, they will instantly show up in my classroom one day without notice and I have to teach them”. For those that come to the US not knowing English, the journey itself impacts the students’ performance as they go through this sort of culture shock. The abrupt change in environment induces anxieties, especially as they are only introduced to the teacher and nobody else.

As there are ESL programs through the US, what the school districts in urban areas fail to realize is that “higher concentrations of non-native speakers learning in a classroom together, in theory, sounds productive, however, I think the results could be significantly better if there were more integration for real-world practice beyond the classroom”. What Kaylie means here is that while classroom instruction is important to build the foundations of the English language for these students, there is something to be said about how limiting it may be if they are not experiencing practice firsthand. With her two eyes facing her average class size of 27, Kaylie cannot singlehandedly solve this problem. Kaylie also states that lack of funding is also an issue that prevents teachers from satisfactorily teaching their students to match their capabilities. “The only material I was able to give my students was an English-to-Spanish dictionary and past standardized tests. Neither the schools nor state would provide me with anything else I needed”.

These are just a few of the challenges that impact ESL learners both in and out of the classroom. While these issues are certainly not hiccups, organizations have taken stances to educate and facilitate this alternative type of learning and assimilate it into the US public school system. The CCCC (College Composition and Communication), is “the world’s largest professional organization for researching and teaching composition”. The CCCC offers guidance on how teachers and program directors can facilitate the growth of their students’ English capabilities by implementing their various languages and literacies. In short, faculty members are urged to teach in a way that: recognizes, investigates, and advocates; essentially becoming more aware and considerate of their students’ situations and translating that into the classroom. I’d like to point out as well that in order for college and university faculty to maximize their planning, a lot of this learning needs to stem earlier and especially through highschool, which is what Kaylie is attempting to accomplish.

In my opinion, I think there should be a way to code-mesh, intertwine, and merge Spanish and English in academic writing. It should be done so in a way that “nobody’s language, dialect, or style make them ‘vulnerable to prejudice’[…] ITS ATTITUDES” (Young). I can state this due to the fact that it occurs outside of the classroom already. I have code-meshed at work with my coworkers or customers, with friends and family, and even with teachers. From what I have witnessed, code meshing occurs in public all of the time, I think it’s certainly more noticeable now with the presence of social media. It’s hard to pick out specific examples of code-meshing as it has almost become its own language, one that can mostly be understood by everyone, regardless of if you speak the language or not.

To close, my opinion on this topic is simple, while the manner in which this can be implemented is not. As of right now, I do not think it is fair to say that this is an attainable goal in the next 10 years. The profession of the English language is extensive and has remained concrete for hundreds of years. If this change were to occur, it would need to affect certain groups of people first, and trickle down to cover everybody involved. Until then, advocating for this change has to be sufficient enough.

Works Cited

Conference on College Composition and Communication. “CCCC Statement on Second Language Writing and Multilingual Writers.” Conference on College Composition and Communication, Jan. 2001, cccc.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/secondlangwriting. Accessed 1 Nov. 2021.

Dollear, Eleanor. “Literacy Is a Human Right.” Working in the Schools, 10 Dec. 2018, witschicago.org/literacy-is-a-human-right. Accessed 1 Nov. 2021.

Fish, Stanley. “What Should Colleges Teach?” The Opinion Pages, 24 Aug. 2009. The New York Times, nyti.ms/2jsywBj. Accessed 1 Nov. 2021.

Keels, Kailey. “Teaching ESL.” College of Charleston, 26 Oct. 2021, Joe E. Berry Residence Hall 104. Speech.

Vecchiarelli, Jennifer. “4 Challenges ESL Learners Face.” ProLiteracy, 19 Apr. 2019, www.proliteracy.org/Blogs/Article/421/4-Challenges-ESL-Learners-Face. Accessed 1 Nov. 2021.

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

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. 

Language, Power, and Rhetorical Choice_ Considering Spanglish

by Laura Martinez

by Corinne Kessler

Among humanity, embracing the variety of dialects is a gateway to diversity and wholesomeness within society. In the eyes of a writing teacher, he or she may believe that formal communication along with proper grammar, diction, and punctuation is the most effective form of language. However, I believe writing teachers should embrace the varieties of English as opposed to limiting the expression of ideas to “standard” grammar and diction. It is important to consider that “linguistic variation may be caused by differences in pronunciation, syntax, vocabulary, formality, and the ways in which language is used” which emphasizes how different forms of language should not be criticized for lacking formal standards (Uccelli). The wide range of dialects has much educational worth to offer, whether they are formal or informal, and possess great value in terms of the backgrounds and cultures they originate from.

Jamilia Lyiscott sheds light on this idea in her Ted Talk, “3 Ways to Speak English”, as she presents how she “code-meshes” and “code-switches” between her three different vernaculars: with her friends, in the classroom, and with her parents. It is important to note that, “each English she uses has rules and grammar, each is a language of its own, but not always recognized with such legitimacy” (Uccelli). Through being a “tri-tongued orator”, Lyiscott illustrates the value of each of her dialects in the sense that she has formed each one to suit the appropriate audience and setting. As Lyiscott unpacks what it means to be “articulate”, she explores the complicated history and present-day identity that each language represents. In doing so, Lyiscott strengthens the idea that educated ideas and worthy language does not necessarily have to be formal; just because one does not speak proper English, does not mean that their form of language lacks value or educated ideas. Lyiscott aims to emphasize to her audience that through acceptance and understanding, people can appreciate what others have to say despite being in a broken tongue or not (Lyiscott). In correspondence to Lyiscott’s message, writing teachers should embrace the abundance of dialects by acknowledging that they all tell a different story as to how the people speaking learned these languages and developed them over the course of time. 

Take the tongue Lyiscott uses to speak with her parents, for example. Lyiscott and her family are from Trinidad, and she was raised in a Black-Caribbean neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York City (Lysicott). Even though the official language of Trinidad is English, it is a very slang version which explains the broken English that Lysicott speaks with her parents. Slang, broken, or informal, this dialect still encompasses historic value; the dialect that Lyiscott’s family uses to communicate with one another reflects their background and culture which exemplifies how humanity is not limited to blossoming in one singular way. Applying this idea to the classroom, writing teachers should recognize how all humans are raised in terms of developing their language and appreciate these upbringings of language as they are all capable of possessing educated ideas.

Similar to Lyiscott, Vershawn Ashanti Young, author of, “Should Writers Use They Own English”, supports the idea of “code-meshing” and “code switching”; both Lyiscott and Young view the acceptance of various dialects as culturally enriching to the world. In terms of the development of dialects, Young claims, “much of what is learned is learned informally and often only partially” to stress that not all people are raised to speak languages in a formal manner as each origin, culture, and background approaches the learning of language with a different style (118). Furthermore, Young touches upon the evolution of dialects as he explains how, “social or cultural representations of recognizable forms of writing persist… [and] those recognizable forms of writing exist across several intellectual generations” (118). In other words, from the time dialects are rooted from their social and cultural origins, they develop and carry on as time progresses.

Lyiscott and Young both provide valuable insight as to why embracing different vernaculars is important to the development of diversity not only in the classroom, but among society as whole as well. This acceptance encourages humans to form a more inclusive community as it helps eliminate negative stereotypes and personal biases about different groups. By taking in all flavors of dialect with an open mind, this helps people recognize and respect the ways of being that are not necessarily their own. Accepting the wide range of dialects in the classroom is only a stepping stone in the direction of this movement, but it is a monumental step in working towards a more diverscially accepting society.