The Past, Present, and Future of LGBTQ+ Code Meshing: Who Does it Belong to?

by —- —–

I would like to start off by setting my intentions for this post. My intentions are to make the reader critically think about a recent issue in society and reflect on it. I want the reader to take in the information and apply it to their own knowledge on the subject and come to their own conclusions on what they believe should be done. With that being said, at the very end of the post, I will be doing the same exact thing. I will be giving my opinion on the topic and talking about how I think the problem can be remedied. I would also like to note that I will be using the term “appropriation” not in a negative or accusatory way but in the context of its definition. With all of this in mind, today I will be discussing the use of code meshing in the LGBTQ+ community and who it belongs to. Vershawn Ashanti Young, an advocate for code meshing in both academic and professional settings, defines code meshing by saying that it “blend[s] 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). In order to determine who deserves the right to police words that are commonplace in the LGBTQ+ community, we must examine the past, present, and future in relation to code meshing.

People say that the past is important as it is a time that we must learn and extract knowledge from, and Polari is no exception. Polari is “playful, quick and clever – a constantly evolving language of fast put-downs, ironic self-parody and theatrical exaggeration” that was often used by gay men and lesbians as a way to communicate with each other without the fear of being oppressed between the 1900s-1970s (Baker 1-2).  Polari is rather unique as “…it emerged as the result of a number of converging subcultures over many decades” (Baker 19); some of those subcultures include theatre speak, Romani, Jewish languages, 1960s drug culture, prostitution, etc. (Baker 31-35). With that said, Polari became exceptionally popularized in the UK by a radio series that ran from 1964 to 1969 called Round the Horne which featured two male, “camp, out-of-work actors” (Baker 1), Julian and Sandy, who, each week, would start a new business where they would attempt to sell a service or good to the character Kenneth Horne. 

During the radio series, Julian and Sandy would speak in broken Polari to Mr. Horne, a straight man (Baker 86). At the beginning of the series, Mr. Horne seems to be ignorant in regards to the language and its words, but throughout the series, he begins to pick up on the meanings of Polari’s words through his interactions with Julian and Sandy. Through the use of this secret language, the series was able to fly under the radar as homosexuality was not legalized in the UK until 1967 (“Sexuality 20th Century”). In the modern-day, Polari is practically non-existent with only those who utilized it in the 1960s speaking it from time to time. With that said, Baker claims that aspects of the (almost) dead language can still be seen in society to this day. He notes that “some of these surviving words are also used by (or initially derived from) American gay subcultures – butch, camp, cruise and trade” (124-125). Another example of a word that is still utilized to this day is the word “drag” which is extremely common in not only the LGBTQ+ community but society as a whole (Baker 173). This is likely due to the skyrocketing popularity of RuPaul’s Drag Race in which drag queens compete to determine who is the best of the best. Another word that is no longer limited to the community is the use of the word “girl” as a “term of address” (Baker 176). In the LGBTQ+ community, the word would be used regardless of a person’s gender. As the word has become accepted by the larger society, however, it should be noted that cisgender heterosexual men are typically not referred to as “girl.” By taking a look at the past it can be reasoned that we have a greater understanding of the future of code meshing in the LGBTQ+ community.

The present use of code meshing in the LGBTQ+ community is what inspired this post, however, we will have to dip a little bit into the past in order to understand how we got here. As of recent, attention has been drawn onto the mass amount of African American Vernacular English (AAVE) that can be found in the LGBTQ+ community. This promotes the question as to why the LGBTQ+ community is often found appropriating AAVE. With very little research, it can be found that the majority, but not all, of the words and phrases used by the community stem from people who are queer/transgender and black. Davis claims that some of the words that have been ingrained in the LGBTQ+ community come from as far back as the Harlem Renaissance. She explains that during this time, drag balls were exceptionally popular; these balls were mostly filled with African American and Latinx members of the LGBTQ+ community where they were free to express themselves without fear of homophobia. Davis explains that this is where words such as “‘…throw shade,’ ‘read,’ ‘vogue,’ ‘dip’ and ‘slay..’” developed (15). This is not just a thing of the past though, the LGBTQ+ community continues to appropriate words from the black, transgender/queer community to this very day. This occurs through the use of “popular platforms like RuPaul’s Drag Race, Pose, Legendary, Queer Eye, and celebrities like Madonna, Beyoncé, Lady Gaga, and even Justin Bieber [who] have been instrumental in mainstreaming Black gay and queer language” (Davis 16). Through the use of thoroughly investigating the present, we can determine how to take action in the future.

With all of this information it raises the question of who owns these words and what should the future of code meshing in the LGBTQ+ community look like? I will first pose a few questions for the reader to think about themselves and then I will express my thoughts on the topic. To start, Polari can be considered the ultimate code mesh with words stemming from a multitude of different cultures. It also tells the story of an oppressed minority who were forced to create their own language in order to survive. With both of those things in mind, does the LGBTQ+ community have the right to police who speaks words that stem from Polari? Next, AAVE and the LGBTQ+ community is riddled with words created by black, queer/transgender folks. These words represent their unique experience of being both queer/transgender and black. It should be noted that the black, LGBTQ+ community has and still continues to face discrimination at the hands of the African American and LGBTQ+ community alike. Considering that, who owns the words and phrases created by the black, queer/transgender community? With all of these questions asked, I will now express my opinions on the matter. Language is forever evolving and changing as we as humans endure new experiences and emotions. Most (if not all) languages are just a melting pot of other languages and cultures. According to Bernoussi “roughly 30% of the English language [has] either French or Latin origins.” This doesn’t account for the countless other languages that English has stolen words from. Bernoussi goes on to list the words “wanderlust,” “detour,” “hotel,” “cookie,” and “safari” as words that many Americans are unaware of being rooted in a different language. “Cookie,” for example, is derived “…from the dutch word koekie” (Bernoussi). In theory, these same attributes can then be applied to AAVE and the LGBTQ+ community. With that said, it should also be taken into consideration that these communities are unique in that both of their languages are derived from a need to protect themselves from outsiders who wish them harm. Although at the times of creation these were necessary, the languages are now acting as barriers that, rather than protect, are dividing people. In a way, the gatekeeping of words is preventing the disintegration of negative prejudices. Now does this mean that I think that people should be allowed to say slurs that don’t apply to them or start speaking purely in a dialect that they did not grow up around or are not a part of? Absolutely not. There must be some limits out of respect for others and what they have gone through. However, I see no problem with people code meshing with the use of words from other dialects/cultures.

Based on everything that has been discussed, I have come up with a set of five rules that I believe everyone should follow when code meshing. Number one: the person must not use the word in a derogatory way with the intent of hurting/insulting the native speakers. Number two: the person must have an understanding of the origins and true definition of the word. Number three: the person must be open to feedback from the particular group where the word stems and back away if they are told that they have overstepped their bounds. Number four: people should not say slurs that do not apply to them. Number five: people should not try to completely convert the way they speak into someone else’s dialect; they should simply code mesh with their native dialect/dialect that applies to their communit(ies). If everyone were to follow these simple rules then we could create a society with stronger bonds and deeper understandings of each other. Through the use of observing the evolution of LGBTQ+ code meshing in the past and present, one is able to create their own opinions on code meshing as a whole and how it should be addressed and/or utilized in the future.

Works cited

Baker, Paul. Polari – The Lost Language of Gay Men: The Lost Language of Gay MenTaylor and Francis, 2004. LGBTQ+ Source, Accessed 31 Oct. 2021. 

Bernoussi, Driss. “English Words Borrowed from Other Languages: ICLS: International Center for Language Studies: Washington D.C.” ICLS, 17 July 2021, https://www.icls.edu/ english-words-borrowed-from-other-languages/. 

Davis, Chloe O. “The Blackness of Queer Vernacular.” Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, vol. 28, no. 5, Sept. 2021, pp. 14–16. EBSCOhost, search-ebscohost-com.nuncio.cofc. edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=qth&AN=152303208&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Greene, Hugh, director. JULIAN & SANDY – Rentachap. YouTube, BBC Radio, 1965, https://youtu.be/-xKYNvI_LbY. Accessed 6 Nov. 2021.

“Sexuality 20th Century.” UK Parliament, https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/ transformingsociety/private-lives/relationships/overview/sexuality20thcentury/. 

​​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. 

 

Implementation of Code-Meshing in the Classroom

by Sophia Brown

The students of today’s classrooms come from varying backgrounds with a mixture of different languages and dialects. Unfortunately, teachers and the subsequent education system do not always take this fact into consideration when it comes to learning. As a result, many students are forced to master material from a curriculum that does not cater to their linguistic and cultural  diversity. Such a lack of inclusivity inevitably leads students to feel as though their language is “incorrect” and does not belong in an educational environment. Instead of simply forcing learners to comply with the rigidity of monolingualism, it is important that teachers and educators actively implement strategies to promote the use of an assortment of languages and dialects. In other words, teachers should encourage the concept of code-meshing, defined by author Vershawn Ashanti Young as the mixing of “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). These strategies contribute not only to the general enrichment of students’ educational experiences, but also encourage students to embrace their unique language and most natural way of speaking. Through the application of multiple methods of linguistic diversity in schools, teachers can directly invite the use of multiple languages in the classroom. In this blog post, I will examine the implementation of multilingual code-meshing in specifically early education via a three-pronged approach: reading activities, writing techniques, and affirmation of students’ languages. 

To encourage code-meshing in classrooms, it is vital that teachers take an active role in mixing different languages during learning experiences, especially through reading exercises. By incorporating multiple languages during readings, teachers are able to teach their young students comprehension skills that go beyond the English language. For instance, a study titled “Code-Meshing and Writing Instruction in Multilingual Classrooms” notes the significance of providing readings to students that mix languages. This can be accomplished through the usage of bilingual picture books, such as books that involve both Spanish and English. Books like these are especially effective during class read-alouds, as it encourages students to think critically about language. Ultimately, having books in the classroom that incorporate multiple languages is beneficial because it can help students learn about various concepts involved in reading, such as composition, syntax, and semantics (164). Similarly, in an academic journal that examines code-meshing methods used by instructors in early and higher education, a teacher by the name of Tom emphasizes the importance of using texts that are “linguistically and culturally relevant” in his instruction (Michael-Luna and Canagarajah 61). He uses books that are primarily in English, but include Spanish dialogue and vocabulary. In particular, he makes sure to select books that contain narrative elements that both his Spanish-speaking students and English-speaking students are familiar with. By selecting multilingual texts, Tom’s students are able to learn themes, structure, rhetoric, and grammar that are present in multiple languages and cultures. In this way, readings that include two or more languages cater to a variety of students and avoid conforming to monolingualism. Students’ reading skills are greatly enhanced because children have an opportunity to learn about the beauty of other ways of speaking and their attached cultures rather than exclusively learning about the rules of standard English.

Additionally, code-meshing can also be achieved through writing exercises in the classroom. Using multi-language strategies in writing is effective because it puts learning into practice and enables students to express themselves via code-meshing. In the previously mentioned source “Code-Meshing and Writing Instruction in Multilingual Classrooms,” the authors discuss an example involving a fourth grade bilingual class. The students were tasked with creating stories that followed a similar form to the text Lucha Libre: The Man in the Silver Mask: A Bilingual Cuento, a children’s story that involves both Spanish and English narration. The students mixed English and Spanish vocabulary in their writings, including entire sentences in Spanish or simply replacing certain English words with Spanish (e.g., “shouted el representador) (162-164). Writing activities like these that prompt students to utilize more than one language are valuable in learning because they encourage students to synthesize and piece together meaningful sentences that blend different ways of speaking and writing. This positively challenges the students that speak the dominant language while allowing linguistically diverse students to express themselves. Additionally, techniques that involve using writing models to create sentences have proven to be helpful to students in putting their multilingual knowledge into practice. Authors S. Michael-Luna and A. Suresh Canagarajah’s article provides a real-life scenario in which students used a premade sentence that the teacher had written, but were prompted to substitute Spanish vocabulary into the wording. For example, students in the class completed the English fragment “Our earth gives us…” with supplied Spanish words such as arboles (trees) or agua (water). This particular activity proved to be useful to students in the long run, with students scoring high in both English and Spanish reading level evaluations. Writing activities that integrate code-meshing serve a dual purpose in that they allow students to achieve a level of comprehension in numerous languages while supporting meaningful expression.

Finally, affirming students in their usage of multiple languages or dialects helps to reinforce the implementation of code-meshing in classrooms. Instead of critically analyzing and correcting the language of students, it is important to highlight the significance of encouraging students to comfortably express themselves through their natural manner of speaking. In turn, this allows students to avoid feeling as though their language or dialect is subordinate to the dominant language. Authors Alice Y. Lee and Lara J. Handsfield offer an excellent perspective on this topic when they refer to the usage of code-meshing as “hidden gems” in students’ writing rather than mistakes to fix (165). These should be things that teachers should celebrate with students, as they display a level of linguistic and cultural understanding specific to the student’s background and knowledge. An example of a “hidden gem” also discussed by Lee and Handsfield is the usage of AAVE (African American Vernacular English) by a student named Jacobi. In this case, Jacobi’s teacher transcribed his verbal message onto a Mother’s Day card that included standard English and AAVE (e.g., “My mom is the prettiest when she smile” and “My mom is funniest when she laugh”). Instead of correcting these rhetorical choices, Jacobi’s teacher chose to transcribe the messages onto the card as said by Jacobi in his code-meshed speech because AAVE is a part of his linguistic identity (161-162). Teachers should follow this example, as it is essential to refrain from erasing the distinct, unique way that children communicate. It is imperative that students should feel free to express themselves in the way that they find to be most natural.

Though the benefits of learning multiple languages and code-meshing in early education are evident, some argue that exposure to other languages at a young age could be potentially confusing. The belief in this debate is that when children learn a secondary language, they will begin to swap words from their primary language and secondary language while communicating. This is a concern for many parents because they feel that this is disorienting for their children and for others. However, it is important to refrain from labeling this mixing of languages as being “confused”; rather, we must recognize that this intertwining of languages is simply code-meshing (Byers-Heinlein and Lew-Williams). Additionally, the idea that acquiring two or more languages hinders communication during early development is incorrect. According to Montreal Children’s Hospital, there is “no proof that young children who learn two languages at the same time get mixed up between the two” and that children will “adapt according to the language spoken by the person with whom they’re interacting and will know how to make the distinction between the two languages” (“Can a Young Child Learn Two Languages at the Same Time?”). From this information, it can be concluded that having knowledge of multiple languages is ultimately beneficial and that code-meshing is not a disturbance to a child’s linguistic growth.

In summary, the concept of code-meshing should be the new status quo in educational environments. With an array of diverse backgrounds and languages, it is only natural that teachers should make an effort to support and enable code-meshing in educational settings. Through strategies like writing activities, readings, and affirming students in their language usage, students are able to use code-meshing effectively and without the restraints of standardized English or monolingualism. Above all, it is crucial to recognize that code-meshing is a productive approach to language in educational environments as opposed to restricting students to one traditional manner of speaking. Code-meshing goes beyond simply gaining knowledge of languages and their subsequent composition; rather, it is the acceptance and integration of one’s identity in the context of communication.

 

Works Cited 

Byers-Heinlein, Krista, and Casey Lew-Williams. “Bilingualism in the Early Years: What the Science Says.” National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2013, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6168212/. Accessed 5 November 2021.

“Can a Young Child Learn Two Languages at the Same Time?” Montreal Children’s Hospital, The Montreal Children’s Hospital, https://www.thechildren.com/health-info/conditions-and-illnesses/can-young-child-learn-two-languages-same-time. Accessed 5 November 2021.

Lee, Alice Y., and Lara J. Handsfield. “Code-Meshing and Writing Instruction in Multilingual Classrooms.” The Reading Teacher, International Literacy Association, 2018, https://www.una.edu/education/educator-preparation/praxis-resources/Code%20Meshing%20and%20Writing%20Instruction%20in%20Multi-Lingual%20Classrooms.pdf. Accessed 30 October 2021.

Michael-Luna, S., and A. Suresh Canagarajah. “Multilingual Academic Literacies: Pedagogical Foundations for Code Meshing in Primary and Higher Education.” EBSCO, Equinox Publishing, https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=efd3377e-cdd7-400f-9aa8-673c4e3a985c%40redis. Accessed 30 October 2021.

Young, Vershawn Ashanti. “Should Writers Use They Own English?” Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2010, p. 114. Accessed 27 October 2021.

How should teachers incorporate code-meshing in the classroom?

by Lucy Angulo

Ahh the importance of diversity in the classroom. Universities and colleges never fail to mention how important a diverse community is to them by emphasizing their resources for minority students and creating equal opportunities for all their students. While there have definitely been significant strides when it comes to diversity in the classroom, we lack the diversity of language. What I mean by this is when it comes to learning how to write and communicate, we are taught there is one correct way, which is standard English. Any other language/vernacular is assumed to be inferior to English and therefore wrong. But what about students that have come from a different culture who might speak different languages and vernaculars such as African American Vernacular English (AAVE)? How can our classrooms be diverse if we limit the culture of students? To solve this issue, code meshing has been introduced to some classrooms, which is “the act of combining local, vernacular, colloquial, and world dialects of English on formal assignments and in everyday conversation in an attempt to embrace the diverse world in which we reside” (Touseank 1).  However, others are against the idea of this incorporation; they believe that as a society, we have established standard English as the correct and most appropriate language, therefore by teaching children about different vernaculars and incorporating code meshing  in the classroom, it is only setting them up to fail as they enter society. 

The American literary theorist and legal scholar, Stanley Fish, expands more on this issue in his article: “What Should Colleges Teach?” He explains that the possibility of a world where all languages and vernaculars are equal is impossible because of the system we already have in place: “It may be true that the standard language is an instrument of power and a device for protecting the status quo, but that very truth is a reason for teaching it to students who are prepared for entry into the world as it now is rather than the world as it might be in some utopian imagination- all dialects equal, all habit of speech and writing equally rewarding.”(Fish Part 3). Fish’s argument is not invalid, however the opinion that he and others share stop our world from being a place with all dialects that are equal and rewarded.  If code meshing and vernaculars were taught and encouraged starting at age when kids begin school, there is a possibility that they will become more accepted and respected in our society. 

As mentioned previously, significant changes can only be made if code meshing is introduced at the elementary level. By the time a student reaches middle school or high school, standard English has been ingrained into their heads, making any other type of vernacular foreign and seemingly wrong. Therefore, by combining different vernacular languages, such as African American Vernacular English (AAVE) with standard English, students will benefit from the language diversity in the classroom. Language is a part of our own identity, whether it is standard English or AAVE. The purpose of a diverse classroom is to learn and listen about different cultures and perspectives. Language is so important to any community, “for African Americans, code-switching is a performative expression that has not only helped some of us thrive in mainstream culture, it has helped many of us simply survive”(Harris 1). Therefore by taking away one’s ability to speak their own vernacular, you are taking away a part of them. Children need to be taught that every background, culture, religion, etc is valued and seen. In addition to incorporating code meshing in the classroom, it is just as important to teach children how to adapt to different situations to speak the vernacular code/language that will be most beneficial and effective. Therefore, code switching plays a role in teaching kids how to adapt to their environment since code switching is “the practice of switching between two or more languages or varieties of language in conversation. It’s when you choose your style of communication based on whom you’re dealing with” (Touseank 1). This adaptability is a crucial skill, so even those who are not used to code switching or code meshing will be able to develop this skill to help them navigate the world.

The largest obstacle educators face when trying to incorporate code-switching and aave in their classroom is the fear that they are setting their students up to fail in the world or that they don’t fully  understand the vernacular to confidently teach others about it. Educators should focus on teaching the importance and validity of other languages/vernacular. Therefore, one factor limiting code meshing is fear; some educators believe it might seem inappropriate if they try to educate students about AAVE if they themselves are not African American. This fear causes a problem, it can affect their students as “our ignorance of specific cultures and languages can, unfortunately, be passed onto students who interpret it as judgement that one language is better than another” (Whitney 65). Therefore, the first step in incorporating code meshing in the classroom is to educate teachers and administrators so that they can confidently and correctly teach their students. Teachers should also make it known that students are encouraged to code mesh and speak their vernacular. 

Once educated, teachers should expose students to AAVE and code meshing by showing examples in writing, music, social media, etc. Through examples, students who are not familiar with AAVE, will begin to understand that those who do speak in their vernacular are “not making language errors: instead, she or he is speaking correctly in language of the fome discourse community”(Whitney ). When children see real life examples where English is combined with AAVE, they can understand that there isn’t a right or wrong way to write or communicate. In addition to in class exposure, teachers should assign their students to read a book, article, or journal that contains code switching or code meshing. With examples both in the classroom and outside, there will be more acceptance in society, which is the end goal for linguistic diversity.  

After children are exposed to code meshing, the next step for educators would be to incorporate code meshing into some assignments. Assignments will encourage students to use their vernacular comfortably and teach others more about the history and use of code meshing. Letting students write how they would talk or communicate freely without worrying about strict grammar rules grows their linguistic skills and creates an environment of acceptance and respect for all vernaculars. Another simple activity children can perform in the classroom is by practicing how they speak to their friends versus how they speak to their parents. Activities help children understand the principle of code meshing which helps students “better develop their communication and language skills while learning more” (Whitney 65). There is something so powerful in the ability to communicate with all different kinds of people, and these practices will prepare students to do so once they graduate. Teachers should also avoid correcting students when they code-switch, instead they should “observe and respond to the ideas and information that children express during code meshing, and build on children’s ideas and information by inviting them to continue to talk about what’s important to them” (U.S Department of Health and Human Services 13). As mentioned earlier, it is important to understand that code switching to standard English in certain situations such as a college interview is beneficial. However, teachers can still help them adapt without correcting them when they choose to use their vernacular language because it can make it seem like one language is preferred/better over the other. 

Incorporating AAVE in the classroom and encouraging code meshing is just part of the solution. As mentioned earlier, our society is built off using the “correct” standard English. Therefore, it is important for teachers to encourage vernacular languages but also educate how they can be perceived in certain environments or contexts. The ability to adapt is crucial in today’s society as other languages/vernaculars can be perceived as unintelligent and incompetent by others. As mentioned before, Stanley Fish talks about how impossible it is to change the perception of others when it comes to vernaculars because standard English has been rooted into society as the correct language: “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 prejudices” (Fish Part 3). Therefore, it is valuable to encourage students to use their own vernacular, but teach them when code-switching might be beneficial to them and will help them prosper. To evaluate whether or not one should code-switch, they should pay attention to the audience and think about how they will interpret what you are saying. Students have the chance to reflect and choose which linguistic style is best at the moment, this is why code switching and code meshing also improves communication.

. As classrooms become more diverse linguistically and culturally, there is a possibility that AAVE and different vernaculars will be as accepted as standard English by incorporating code meshing in the classroom at an early age. Vershawn Ashanti Young states what needs to be done to create acceptance of AAVE in his article Should Writers Use They Own English. Young mentions, “What we need to do is enlarge our perspective about what good writin is and how good writin can look at work, at home, and at school” (Young 112). Teachers also need to understand AAVE/other languages to be able to encourage it in the classroom while also teaching students how to adapt by code switching depending on the context. This acceptance will not come easily, but as new generations learn how to respect one another, people won’t feel as pressured to code-switch and will feel comfortable speaking in their vernacular around others who speak a different language. However, if code meshing and vernaculars were taught and encouraged starting at age when kids begin school, there is a possibility that the dominant  standard English language might dwindle. 

 

Works Cited

 

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

Harris, Ida. “Opinion: Code-Switching Is Not Trying to Fit in to White Culture, It’s Surviving It.” YES! Magazine, Yes! Solutions Journal , 17 Dec. 2019, www.yesmagazine.org/opinion/2019/12/17/culture-code-switching. 

Touseank, T. “Code Meshing V. Code Switching .” Tousean King, 20 Oct. 2016, tkingsite.wordpress.com/2016/08/29/first-blog-post/. 

U.S Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families , Office of Head Start . Code Switching: Why It Matters and How to Respond , The National Center On Cultural and Linguistic Responsiveness, pp. 4–13. 

Whitney , Jessica. “Five Easy Pieces: Steps towards Integrating AAVE into the Classroom.” The English Journal, vol. 94, no. 5, May 2005, pp. 64–69. 

Young, Vershawn Ashanti. “Should Writers Use Their Own English?” Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2010, pp. 110–117., https://doi.org/10.17077/2168-569x.1095. 

 

Code Meshing With Respect

by Cami Greene

In 2009, Stanley Fish released a three-part essay piece entitled “What Should Colleges Teach?” The third part of the series, which can be considered the most important piece, details how colleges and schools should teach writing. Fish argues that Standard English should be taught as the primary dialect used for academic purposes but acknowledges that groups of people have prior dialects they use to speak. He claims that solely teaching Standard English will allow those with other dialects to not be prejudiced against or taken less seriously compared to someone who uses Standard English (2). Following this essay, Professor Vershawn Ashanti Young published an essay reacting to Fish. Young mainly disagrees with Fish and claims that Fish is indirectly supporting language discrimination because “he appeal to its acceptable form-standard language ideology” (111). Furthermore, Young presents the idea of code meshing, which is when different dialects are blended together in conversation, leading to language diversity (114). This disagreement of sorts paves the way for scholars to talk about whether different dialects, such as AAVE, can be accepted into academic usage. I believe that we should use code meshing to some extent, but primarily accept AAVE and other dialects as grammatically correct and academically appropriate.

Following the release of Young’s essay, people began to discuss code meshing and how it could be incorporated into society. Ghanashyam Sharma wrote about Young among others about how Standard English is the “assumed” language and the people who are going against that narrative. Suresh Canagarajah is another writing who promotes code meshing. Canagarajah’s idea is to have teachers allow students to create their own forms of English with previously known dialects, while Young promotes the idea of teaching multiple dialects, so every child is multidialectal (Sharma 253). I agree with both writers and their opinions because I think students should be allowed to speak their own dialects without having a singular standard of English. However, I think Fish has a valid point when he mentioned that it may not be the best idea to implement a multidialectal education in schools because of previous prejudices of AAVE and Black dialects (Fish 2). If we were to teach multiple dialects at once, those who are white may appropriate black language or take it too far, such as using slurs like the N-word. Although I believe Fish has a valid point, I think overall I agree with Young and Canagarajah more.

Another voice in this discussion is John McWhorter, another author who writes about racism and the advocacy for black voices. In an article on his website titled,” ARE WHITE PEOPLE USING BLACK ENGLISH WORDS BEING LIKE ELVIS STEALING ROCK AND ROLL?” McWhorter summarizes a skit from Saturday Night Live in which multiracial people were using AAVE and Black dialects. Within the segment, the actors were playing teens communicating in AAVE. Although they were not making fun of the language, there was great backlash because people assumed a white person wrote the skit, but in reality, Michael Che (who is Black), wrote the skit (27). Without knowing who write the skit, people thought the non-Black actors were appropriating Black culture. McWhorter indirectly argues in favor of Young’s code meshing because we have a history of being interconnected, such as music. Using music as an example, artists such as the Rolling Stones or Eminem would not have the popularity they do without Black culture. He answers the title of his article by explaining that white people are using Black language to show how comfortable they are becoming with Black people rather than stealing their culture, but there are also still words white people don’t use from Black dialects (26). In the classroom, this way of thinking could be seen through code meshing and having blended languages. Students would have interconnected dialects without appropriating Black languages.

This way of thinking led me to believe that code meshing with respect will help the future of language in academia. If students use a version of code meshing, but acknowledging the roots of Black dialects, students can grow up being more diverse with their language and highlighting the equality of language. Originally, I thought it would be best to not code mesh because of appropriation and the worry that white people would not use Black language correctly, but McWhorter explained that if we were to try to keep languages separate, it would not work out due to how immersed language is in society and how quickly people pick up phrases. On top of that, McWhorter does not believe in a true form of “Black English” because it could be seen as a black person speaking in a Southern accent, which is not wrong in itself, but can be seen as an indicator of a lack of intelligence, especially using outdated stereotypes (23-24). This idea supports Young’s idea of multidialectal speaking because of how engrained the use of combined dialects already is, proving that it would be more difficult to try and separate the languages instead of embracing the diversity.

One way code meshing with respect could be enforced in a classroom is to create a guide deciding how non-Black students should or should not code mesh to an extent. This is only a suggestion but can lead those who are confused about code meshing in the right path. An example of this is allowing AAVE and room for discussion but not allowing slurs or derogatory statements. When deciding what is or is not respectful, nobody in particular can choose for all, but I recommend listening to people of color in the community and seeing what they have to say, but also realizing that this topic means something different to everyone and not everyone will have the same response.

However, the larger issue at hand is that Black dialects are not accepted as academically or grammatically correct, leading to racism against Black people and the continuous stereotypes that they are not as educated as white people. If the academic community accepted Black dialects, there could be more diversity in the way people write and speak in the classroom. This could also lead to some of the negative stereotypes not being as popular as they currently are because Black writers would be gaining more recognition for their work and ideas.

In conclusion, writers have been arguing about how Black language can be incorporated into the academic community for years. Both Fish and Young want to have Black dialects acknowledged, but Fish wants Standard English to remain the appropriate dialect used for academic purposes, while Young wants to combine dialects in the classroom to create a diverse experience. Other authors have sided with Young, such as Canagarajah or McWhorter, but still think Fish has valid points. I primarily agree with Young and McWhorter, but I think that we should code mesh to a respectable extent and teach the histories of Black dialects so they can be widely accepted in society.

 

 

Works Cited

 

Fish, Stanley. “‘What Should Colleges Teach?’ Part 3.” New York Times, 7 Sept. 2009.

McWhorter, John. “ARE WHITE PEOPLE USING BLACK ENGLISH WORDS BEING LIKE ELVIS STEALING ROCK AND ROLL?” It Bears Mentioning, 29 May 2021, johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/are-white-people-using-black-english?r=3vwvr&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=twitter.

Sharma, Ghanashyam. “Rethinking Language and Writing in Composition.” JSTOR, 2009, www.jstor.org/stable/20866895.

Young, Vershawn Ashanti. “Should Writers Use They Own English.” Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2010, pp. 110–18. JSTOR, ir.uiowa.edu/ijc.

Vernacular English, Code-Meshing, Code-Switching, & Writing Conventions

     by Audrey Schroeder

In a nation as culturally and linguistically diverse as the United States, it should not be surprising that there are many different vernacular languages spoken here. In recent years, there has been much debate on the teaching of Standard American English in schools. This begs the question: should only teaching or accepting Standard American English in schools as a useful and valid language be the norm? Code-meshing and code-switching are forms of using more than one variety of a language that have developed out of this dilemma and have become prominent in the United States. Code-meshing is taking more than one language or vernacular and combining the languages. Some examples of code-meshing are speaking in English but switching to Spanish for some words or phrases or using both Standard American English and African American Vernacular English to better articulate oneself. Code-switching is when one uses one language or vernacular in some scenarios and switches completely to another language or vernacular in other scenarios. According to the needs of American children and students growing up in a linguistically diverse nation, schools should improve the teaching of issues surrounding varieties of English as opposed to “standard” grammar and diction.

     Different academics and writers have differing opinions on the issue. For instance, Stanley Fish in his opinion piece “What Should Colleges Teach” for the New York Times, discusses what college professors should be teaching in regards to writing. Fish says he uses a method of “asking students to make a sentence out of a random list of words, and then explain what they did” then “asking students to turn a three-word sentence like “Jane likes cake” into a 100- word sentence without losing control of the basic structure and then explain, word-by-word, clause-by-clause, what they did” and finally “asking students to replace the nonsense words in the first stanza of Lewis Carroll’s “Jabberwocky” with ordinary English words in a way that makes coherent (if silly) sense, and then explain what they did, and how they knew what kind of word to put into each “slot.”’ (96-102). His approach to the issue appears to be to teach students “correct” Standard American English grammar and writing skills and encourage students to use different dialects and vernaculars to enhance style when appropriate. He cites inequality in an imperfect world as his reason for this. Fish explains that even if academically it is understood that different vernaculars and dialects are equally as acceptable, in the current state of this nation, all vernacular dialects are not accepted by certain occupations or industries and he does not want to give students false hope or skills that will not always be useful to them.

     Vershawn Ashanti Young is another academic who responded to Fish’s writing in his “Should Writers Use They Own English”. Fish has the opinion that prejudices against ways of speaking that are not “standard” are often racially motivated. He writes, “But dont nobody’s language, dialect, or style make them “vulnerable to prejudice.” It’sATTITUDES. It be the way folks with some power perceive other people’s language. Like the way some view, say, black English when used in school or at work. Black English dont make it own-self oppressed. It be negative views about other people usin they own language” (Young 110). Young’s point is that if the nation continues to teach young students that the way they have learned to speak and write is incorrect when it is dependent on their socioeconomic or racial or ethnic status, the prejudices will only worsen. He takes the stance that there is great value in the differences of vernaculars and people should not have to learn to code-switch or even code-mesh. He believes that different forms of vernacular English should be accepted. He even writes in a combination of code-meshing and code-switching between African American Vernacular English and Standard American English to further his point. For English speakers who do not use African American Vernacular English, it is still easily understood, the only thing that would hinder an English speaker from understanding the meaning of his writing would be prejudice or ignorance. 

     Jamila Lyiscott is a poet and educator who gave a TED Talk titled “3 Ways to Speak English” about code-meshing, code-switching, and the different forms of vernacular English she speaks. She “decides to treat all her languages as equal because [she] is articulate” (Lyiscott). She performs the entire TED Talk in a form of code-meshing and code-switching alternating between the different vernacular languages she speaks. She, like Young, firmly believes the current way vernacular English speakers are treated is rooted in racism and prejudice. She even goes as far as claiming that the entire reason many people in America speak different vernaculars is because they were “stolen or raped away from their homes” and that is why she speaks a “composite version of your language” (Lyiscott). Here, she is obviously referring to the enslavement of African and Indigenous people in America and how they were forced to learn a new language and how a middle ground of different vernaculars was formed in the process. An example of this locally, could be the Gullah language spoken primarily in Charleston. Gullah is a vernacular spoken primarily in Charleston but also in similar regions. It was created by African people, who were enslaved and brought to the United States through the port city of Charleston. This vernacular is now historic and is valued, but would most likely not be applauded in academic or work circles, aside from possibly an academic group interested in history.

     The Harvard Business Review published an article titled “The Costs of Code-Switching” discussing the positive and negative results of Black people in America utilizing code-switching in different environments and contexts. They explain that there are three major reasons that Black people use the strategy of code-switching in the workplace, “downplaying membership in a stigmatized racial group helps increase perceptions of professionalism”, “Avoiding negative stereotypes associated with black racial identity”, and “Expressing shared interests with members of dominant groups promotes similarity with powerful organizational members” (McCluney et al.). According to this article, even though code-meshing and using vernacular forms of English should be taught, embraced, and accepted, it is clear that they do not benefit people of color, primarily Black people in this case, in the workplace and in academia.

     In summation, different varieties of vernacular English should be embraced more in schools, however, standard convention should still be taught and the context in which standard English may be helpful should also be taught. It is important to encourage young students and teach them that their vernacular is valuable and intelligent, while also ensuring they have the communication skills that are expected in work and academic realms of their life.

 

Works Cited

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/. 

Lyiscott, Jamila, director. 3 Ways to Speak English, TED, Feb. 2014, https://www.ted.com/talks/jamila_lyiscott_3_ways_to_speak_english?language=en#t-73240. Accessed 29 Oct. 2021. 

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

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.