by Lili Ross
In the last few decades, there has been a lot of debate surrounding the teaching of the “Standard” English language, especially in high school and college settings. Some, such as Stanley Fish, argue that while individual dialects are important, they do not have a place in the formal academic setting – students should be taught to use “Standard” English correctly so that they may succeed in a world that requires it. Others, such as Vershawn Ashanti Young, see this separation as unnecessary and harmful to the students – educators are encouraging the flawed practice of code-switching when they should be promoting code-meshing. As Young describes it, code-meshing is “mulitdialectalism and pluralingual-ism in one speech act, in one paper … blend[ing] dialects, international languages, local idioms, chat-room lingo, and the rhetorical styles of various ethnic and cultural groups in both formal and informal speech acts” (114). I won’t advocate for one teaching method or another, but rather I’d like to explore the legitimacy of code-meshing as an acceptable form of writing if it were to be accepted into “Standard” English rules.
As Melissa Dennihy noted in her essay, what’s commonly referred to as “Standard” English is better defined as Standardized English, as it acknowledges that our current rules have developed from the language of ‘consensus’ – everyone within a specific area generally agreeing that there are certain ways to say things. With this distinction in mind, it is especially important to note that Standardized English has the power to change as English speakers change: the “standard” grammar and linguistic rules of the 1600s are different from the 1800s, which are different from now, and that’s okay. As explained in A History of the English Language, “language lives only on the lips of living people and must change as the needs of the people expressing themselves change … we must not think that the English of London … is the norm by which all other speech must be judged, and that in whatever respects other speech differs from this norm it is inferior” (Baugh 328). It is not unreasonable to expect that perhaps one day, if enough people were to extensively use it, code-meshing could become incorporated into our Standardized English rules. The question at this point becomes twofold: firstly, does code-meshing have the necessary qualities to theoretically function as a component of Standardized English? And secondly, in our current society and culture, is it likely that code-meshing would be eer accepted within Standardized English?
As explained in the CCCC’s position statement, uniformity is often presented as the only way to attain ‘good’ writing, when in fact, professors of academia should be showing their students that ‘good’ writing comes from “precise, effective, and appropriate communication in diverse ways, whatever the dialect” (3). If professors are meant to be educating their students how to write well under the rules of Standardized English, as Fish argues, then as we’ve posited, they could one day begin teaching code-meshing in classrooms. In determining whether or not code-meshing could function within Standardized English, I would argue that a good test would be to compare against CCCC’s standards for ‘good’ writing. Namely, can code-meshing be precise, effective, and appropriate?
Precision is often defined as the accuracy and exactness present in a writer’s word choice. One university, in trying to help pin down this definition for students, came up with a few examples of precision in writing, with the main point being to “never sacrifice meaning or clarity for novelty” (Butte 3-5). Essentially, the website encouraged students to use language that was widely understood, not replacing smaller words for more complex ones to seem better educated or cultured. This is best illustrated in one of President Franklin Delanor Roosevelt’s speeches, as he revised a sentence written by his speechwriter to sound more accessible and down-to-earth: in changing the sentence, “We are endeavoring to construct a more inclusive society,” he chose to reflect the values he was promoting, “We’re going to make a country in which no one is left out.” In choosing “simpler” words, the sentence becomes more precise and effective to the desired audience. Young echoes this idea in his essay, noting that many of his graduate students “tend to try too hard to sound academic, often using unnecessary convoluted language, using a big word where a lil one would do” (113). With this in mind, I would argue that when a writer introduces code-meshing into their writing, it can help the essay become more precise. This is clearly demonstrated in the writings of linguist Dr. Geneva Smitherman, a retired English professor from Michigan State University. In one of her published works, Talkin’ and Testifyin’, she describes the nuance in blending dialects, explaining that “the most distinctive differences in the structure of Black Dialect are patterns using be … mainly used to indicate a condition that occurs habitually … For example, The coffee bees cold means Every day the coffee’s cold, which is different from The coffee cold which means Today the coffee’s cold” (19). For people who do not speak the dialect, this subtle difference may be hard to understand, but now knowing the distinction, properly introducing this dialect into a paper could offer a level of precision not easily attained through “Standard” English.
For a sentence to be considered effective, one faculty member from the University of Washington defined six standards: the language must be concrete and specific, concise, familiar, correct, constructive, and appropriate (“Effective”). While these standards all sound similar, I would argue that effectiveness comes when the audience can easily understand the main ideas behind a sentence, often through the distinct word choice. Effectiveness can be achieved in many ways and is a very subjective concept, but similar to precision, it often develops when the writer is using language they have a clear mastery of. In many cases, code-meshing can lead to effectiveness because there may not be an equivalent word in Standardized English. As Dennihy explains, for one of her assignments she asks students to bring in a work that uses a language or dialect outside of Standardized English and analyze it. One year, a student chose a song written in Spanglish – after translating the lines, she “discussed the challenges of translating the text, explaining why certain lines were rendered less powerful in Standardized English and why some words were untranslatable” (193). In terms of content, code-meshing offers a unique chance to discuss an idea that may not be “translatable” in Standardized English, therefore being a viable source of effectiveness. But as the university states, effectiveness also comes from grammatically clear writing – when the audience doesn’t have to reread a sentence several times to understand what’s being said, the sentence can be considered effective. Some may argue that by promoting code-meshing, one would want to eliminate all rules of Standardized English, grammar and all, but this statement follows faulty logic. Oftentimes, when someone uses code-meshing in a piece of writing, the dialect is present in the words used, not the grammar. No matter the chosen dialect, the grammar of the sentence still remains – in a general sense, a sentence is grammatically correct if the sentence is free of comma splices, run-on ideas, and the if subject agrees with the verb. These grammatical rules are not inherently tied to Standardized English – every language and dialect, whether it be English, German, Spanglish, AAVE, or “text lingo,” is able to follow these and other grammar rules. Therefore code-meshing, as long as it is done well, has the potential to be grammatically effective as well as thoughtfully effective.
The final criterion is appropriateness – can a paper using code-meshing be compatible for the subject it was written for? This question is harder to answer as it can widely vary according to context – one must consider the age of the writer, whether it be for a high school or college course, the expectations of the professor, and the formality of the assignment. What may be okay for an introductory English class may not work for an upper-level Chemistry lab report, but that does not discount code-meshing as a viable tool. In situations where the writer is encouraged to develop and use their own voice, code-meshing could be an integral part of their writing, offering a way for the writer to say things in their own language and provide unique and thoughtful insight. While this is less common in scientific settings, it is still important for researchers to provide their own input and thoughts on the experiment – as one article states, “it is important not to bury your voice in quotes from more well-established researchers … your conclusions should be based on your original thoughts, which clearly communicate your stance” (Robbins 3). If code-meshing is how you attain that, then it should be considered appropriate for the content.
We’ve proven that code-meshing is a viable candidate for ‘good’ writing as it can be precise, effective, and appropriate when done well, but is it likely that others will recognize that? Unfortunately, in current times, when someone refers to ‘good’ writing, they immediately think of “Standard” English, which many argue has no place for code-meshing. Dennihy notes that after assigning The Color Purple, while many of her students enjoyed Walker’s unique use of language, they “remained unwilling to consider the text an example of ‘good writing’ or ‘good literature,’ given its nonstandardized English” (199). Many students, myself included, have been taught to separate the ideas of personal language and academic language – both are okay and acceptable in their own spheres, but personal language never has a place in an academic setting and vice-versa. We have been taught that ‘good’ writing stems only from correct writing, which must follow Standardized English rules, but that doesn’t make it right. In fact, we have seen how, when used well, code-meshing provides opportunities to be precise and effective that Standardized English cannot.
In our current society, it is realistic to say that code-meshing would not be widely accepted as the definition of ‘good’ writing has not yet adapted, but that can always change. As the CCCC notes, “today’s students will be tomorrow’s employers” – if professors of English could start encouraging code-meshing in writing classes today, then eventually code-meshing could be recognized by the world (23). By exposing young students to published works that incorporate code-meshing, professors can begin to shift the meaning of ‘good’ writing, following the CCCC’s supported standards. By teaching students how to use the tool of code-meshing correctly, rather than shying away from it altogether, we can start to change the rules of Standardized English. But to make any change, we must first be open to the fact that ‘good’ writing doesn’t come from the set of rules regarding language, but rather the language itself.
Works Cited
Baugh, Albert Croll, and Thomas Cable. A History of the English Language. 5th ed., Routledge, 2002.
Butte College. “How to Write Clearly: Using Precise and Concise Language – Tip Sheet.” Butte College, Butte College, 19 Dec. 2019, http://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/style_purpose_strategy/writing_clearly.html.
“Committee on CCCC Language: Background Statement.” Students’ Right to Their Own Language, special issue of College Composition and Communication, vol, 25, no. 3, Sept. 1974, pp 1-18. JSTOR, doi:10,2307/356219
Dennihy, Melissa. “Beyond English: Linguistic Diversity in the College English Classroom.” MELUS: Multi-Ethnic Literature of the U.S., vol. 42 no.4, 2017, p. 192-212. Project MUSE muse.jhu.edu/article/680702.
“Effective Use of Language.” University Of Washington. Accessed October 30, 2021, https://faculty.washington.edu/ezent/el.htm.
Fish, Stanley. “What Should Colleges Teach?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 25 Aug. 2009, https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/what-should-colleges-teach/.
Robbins, Susan P. “Finding Your Voice as an Academic Writer (and Writing Clearly).” Journal of Social Work Education, vol. 52, no. 2, 2016, pp. 133–135., https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2016.1151267.
Smitherman, Geneva. Talkin and Testifyin: The Language of Black America. Houghton Mifflin, 1977.
Young, Vershawn Ashanti, et. al., editors. Other People’s English: Code-Meshing, Code-Switching and African American Literacy. Teachers’ College Press, 2014.